BX  5099    .M152   1841a  c.l 
Mcllvaine,   Charles  Pettit, 

1799-1873 . 
Ox^XCL  divinir.v  comna  rpd 


Digitized  by 

the  Internet  Archive 

in  2015 

https://archive.org/details/oxforddivinitycoOOmcil 


OXFORD  DIVINITY 


COMPARED  WITH  THAT  OP  THE 


ROMISH  AND  ANGLICAN  CHURCHES 


SPECIAL  VIEW  TO  THE  ILLUSTKATION 


DOCTRINE  OF  JUSTIFICATION  BY  FAITH, 

AS  IT  WAS  MADE  OF  PRIMARY  IMPORTANCE  BY   THE  REFORMERS  ; 
AND  AS  IT  LIES  AT  THE  FOUNDATION  OF  ALL  SCRIPTURAL 
VIEWS  OF  THE  GOSPEL  OF  OUR  LORD  JESUS  CHRIST. 


BY  THE  RT.  REV.  CHARLES  PETTIT  M'lLVAINE,  D.D., 

BISHOP  OF  THE  PROTESTANT  EPISCOPAL  CHURCH  IJf  THE 
DIOCESE   OF  OHIO. 


JOSEPH  WHETHAM  &  SON. 


1841. 


Entered,  according  to  Act  of  Congress,  in  the  year  1840,  by  the  Author,  in 
the  Clerk's  office,  of  the  District  Court,  of  the  Eastern  District  of  Pennsylvania. 


J.  L.  Powell,  Friater,  BurliDgton,  N.J 


To 

The  Reverend, 

The  Presbyters  and  Deacons  of  the  Protestant  Episcopal  Church,  in 
the  Diocese  of  Ohio, 
This  Volume  is  inscribed, 
as  the  fruit  of  a  sincere  endeavour  to  discharge  his  solemn  duty, 
and  as  a  testimony  of  most  earnest  desire  that  they  may  be  both 
happy  and  useful  in  the  knowledge  and  preaching  of  the  truth,  as  it 
is  in  Jesus, 

by  their  affectionate  brother  and  servant, 

in  the  Gospel  of  Christ, 

The  Authok. 


PREFACE. 


Whoever  may  honour  this  work  with  their  attention  will  soon  per- 
ceive that  the  author  is  deeply  impressed  with  the  grave  importance 
of  the  errors,  and  the  probable  evil  consequences  to  the  Church,  of 
what  is  here  called,  for  convenience  sake,  Oxford  Divinity.  In  his 
view,  the  vital  principle  of  that  Divinity,  so  far  as  the  system  is  pe- 
culiar, is  precisely  the  same  as  that  to  which  are  to  be  traced  all  the 
various  and  gross  departures  from  truth  and  godliness  in  the  Church  of 
Rome.  It  was  well  advised  by  "the  principal  Theologues"  of  the 
Council  of  Trent,  that  the  Fathers  and  Divines  of  that  body  should  be 
*'  assiduous  and  exact  in  their  studies"  concerning  the  doctrine  of  Jus- 
tification, "  because  all  the  errors  of  Martin  (of  the  Reformation) 
were  resolved  into  that  point.  For  (said  they)  having  undertaken 
from  the  beginning  to  oppugn  the  Indulgences,  he  saw  he  could  not 
obtain  his  purpose,  except  he  destroyed  the  works  of  repentance, 
(expiatory  penances)  in  defect  whereof,  Indulgences  do  succeed. 
And  Justification,  by  faith  only,  seemed  to  him  a  good  means  to 
effect  this — from  whence  he  hath  denied  efficacy  in  the  Sacraments, 
authority  of  Priests,  Purgatory,  Sacrifice  of  the  Mass,  and  all  other 
remedies  for  remission  of  sins." 

Such  was  the  just  view  entertained  in  the  Council  of  Trent,  of 
that  on  which  the  whole  work  of  the  Reformation  was  built,  and  by 
which  the  whole  structure  of  Romanism  was  cast  down.  The  doc- 
trine of  Justification  by  Faith  was  the  master-principle  of  the  Re- 
formation. "  Therefore  by  a  contrary  way  (said  the  chief  Theolo- 
gians of  the  Council)  he  that  will  establish  the  body  of  the  Catholic 
doctrine  (in  other  words,  he  that  would  re-instate  Indulgences, 
Penances,  Purgatory,  the  opus  operatum  of  the  Sacraments,  the 
authority  of  the  Priest's  absolutions,  the  Sacrafice  of  the  Mass,  &c.) 
must  overthrow  the  heresy  of  Justification  by  faith  only."^    In  all 


'  Paul's  Hist.  Council  of  Trent,  p.  190. 


vi 


PREFACE. 


this,  there  was  the  soundest  view  of  the  relation  of  cause  and  effect. 
And  therefore  have  we  no  question,  that  now,  while  Oxford  Divi- 
nity is  fast  developing  its  real  character,  in  divers  ramifications  of 
overt  Romanism,  and  exhibiting  the  strongest  tendencies  to  do  so, 
more  and  more,  the  only  explanation  needed  is  to  be  found  in  its 
entire  defection  from  the  Scriptural  doctrine  of  how  a  sinner  can  be 
just  with  God,"  and  the  only  antidote  required  is  the  clear  under- 
standing, the  faithful  teaching,  the  full  carrying  out  of  that  same 
great  doctrine,  so  mighty  in  the  war  of  the  Reformation,  so  feared 
and  hated  and  libelled  in  the  Councils  of  the  Church  of  Rome, — Jus- 
tification, by  the  Imputed  Righteousness  of  Christ,  through  the  alone 
agency  of  a  living  faith. 

Clearly  as  the  strength  of  Romanism  was  known,  by  the  Eng- 
lish Reformers,  to  lie  in  her  arms  concerning  Justification,  there 
were  not  wanting,  even  in  their  times,  those  who,  for  lack  of  a  right 
view  of  the  relative  bearing  of  this  subject  on  all  other  parts  of  di- 
vinity, were  disproportionately  occupied  with  manifestations  of  Ro- 
manism, which,  however  evil,  should  have  been  ragarded  only  as 
the  poisonous  issues  of  that  one  central  source  of  error  in  religion 
"  where  Satan's  seat  is."  To  such  mistakes,  the  celebrated  Re- 
former, Fox,  referred,  when,  in  his  discourse,  entitled  "Christ  Tri- 
umphant," he  said  :  "  It  is  necessary  that  this  doctrine  (Justifica- 
tion) should  be  retained  and  preached  in  the  Church  ;  which  being 
of  long  time  hidden  from  Christians  and  almost  extinguished,  the 
heroical  and  mighty  spirit  of  Christ,  by  the  ministry  and  preaching 
of  jMartin  Luther^  hath  kindled  and  raised  up  again  in  the  Church. 
Yet  such  is  the  mischief  and  misery  of  these  wicked  days,  through 
the  subtle  practising  of  Satan  that  all  Christendom  is  in  an  uproar 
by  matters  of  contentions,  and  in  the  mean  time,  all  regard  of  that 
which  is  the  most  principal  point  of  our  salvation  is  set  at  nought, 
and  almost  brought  again  to  utter  decay." 

The  Reformer  is  evidently  referring  to  contentions  about  the  more 
superficial  parts  of  Romanism;  as  if  the  symptoms  were  the  dis- 
ease, while  its  "evil  heart  of  unbelief"  was  overlooked.  Such  has 
been,  far  too  much,  the  case  in  what  has  been  said  and  written  con- 

»  Elsewhere,  this  Reformer  speaks  as  all  English  Reformers  were  wont  to 
speak  of  "  the  grave  and  excellent  judgment  of  Martin  Luther,  that  most  singu- 
lar and  chosen  instrument  of  setting  forth  the  gospel  of  Christ." 


PREFACE. 


vii 


cerning  the  system  of  doctrine  which  is  considered  in  this  volunae. 

Had  it  been  always  tried  by  such  an  eye  as  that  which  searched  the 
heart  of  Romanisnn  at  the  Reformation  ;  or  as  that  with  which  our 
Andrewes  and  Hall  and  Usher  and  Davenant  delected  the  main- 
spring of  all  Romish  corruptions,  in  the  controversies  of  their  day, 
we  should  not  have  heard  less  indeed  of  the  tendencies  of  this  new 
divinity  to  the  more  manifest  heresies  of  Popery  ;  but  we  should 
have  heard  much  more  of  its  identity  with  Popery  in  that  grand  de- 
defection  from  the  truth  concerning  the  sinner's  justification  before 
God,  in  which  they  both  alike,  do  live  and  move  and  have  their  being. 

Few  evidences  of  that  sad  decline  in  the  Church  of  England  from 
the  spirit  and  doctrine  of  her  martyred  Reformers,  which  the  eigh- 
teenth and  the  latter  part  of  the  seventeenth  century  exhibited,  are 
more  striking  than  that  which  appears  in  the  almost  entire  exclu- 
sion from  the  controversies  carried  on  in  those  days,  with  Rome,  of 
the  doctrine  of  justification.  In  the  days  of  the  Reformation,  who 
would  have  written  upon  Popery  and  not  spoken  of  the  doctrine  of 
justification  by  inherent  righteousness,  as  its  main  and  vital  princi- 
ple? Read  the  solemn  confessions  of  the  Anglican  Martyrs!  They 
are  full  of  protest  against  this  chief  corruption.  What  pains  does 
the  venerable  Latimer  take  to  be  distinct  and  conlinual  on  this 
head  !  How  does  Hooper  labour  it !  The  controversial  work  of  Had- 
don,  in  the  reign  of  Elizabeth,  against  the  Portuguese  Divine,  Oso- 
rius,  written  as  a  sort  of  Stale-Book,  as  Slrype  calls  it,  in  defence  of 
the  English  Reformation,  and  completed  by  Fox,  is  occupied,  in  a 
very  large  part  of  its  pages,  with  the  single  subject  of  justification. 
How  much  the  judicious  Hooker  made  of  it,  whoever  has  read  his 
Discourse  of  Justificatitm  cannot  but  know.  Such  views  of  the 
eminent  prominence  of  this  subject  in  all  controversies  with  Rome 
continued  unabated  into  the  seventeen! h  century.  The  woiks  of 
Perkins,  a  greai  light  at  Cambridge,  and  a  strong  adversary  of 
Rome,  who  died  in  the  beginning  of  that  cenlury,  are  stored  w  ith 
it.  In  Usher,  it  is  almost  omnipresent.  Bishop  Dcnvname,  devoted 
a  whole  folio  volume  of  controversy,  with  Rome,  to  this  one  point. 
The  same  sense  of  the  great  importance  of  the  difference  between 
the  faith  of  the  Anglican  Church,  and  that  of  the  Church  of  Rome, 
on  this  head,  appears  in  the  works  of  Andrewes,  Hall,  Davenant, 
Hopkins,  Jackson,  &c.  But  as  we  approach  the  later  periods  of  that 
century,  when  it  is  acknowledged  that  true  religion  was  greatly  on 


viii 


PREFACE. 


the  wane  in  the  Church  of  England,  we  find  this  great  subject  more 
and  more  excluded  from  the  controversies  with  Rome,  as  if  the  greater 
number  of  Protestant  writers  were  either  agreed  with  her  doctrine  in 
that  particular,  or  considered  the  objections  of  Protestants  of  no 
great  importance.  When  however  we  have  reached  the  eighteenth 
century  wherein,  it  is  universally  conceded  that  the  spiritual  charac- 
ter of  the  Church  of  England  was  at  its  lowest  depression,  we  take 
leave  of  Justification  by  Faith,  as  occupying  any  conspicuous  place 
in  the  differences  between  Popery  and  Protestantism.  The  axe  is 
laidno  more  at  the  root  of  the  tree.  The  great  effort  against  Popery 
is  to  trim  off  its  branches. 

This  lamentable  change  in  the  doctrinal  character  of  the  divines 
of  the  Church  of  England,  must  be  considered  as  having  received 
one  of  its  earliest  impulses  from  the  writings  of  that  learned  foreigner, 
Hugo  Grotius.  The  peculiar  views  of  that  author,  on  justification, 
lacked  no  favour  in  Archbishop  Laud.  Sheldon,  after  the  Restora- 
tion, renewed  their  influence.  They  were  rescued  from  the  disgrace 
of  being  associated  with  the  rapidly  growing  irreligion  of  that  age, 
by  finding  in  the  main,  a  most  learned  and  vigorous  champion  in 
that  truly  excellent  Prelate,  Bishop  Bull.  This  eminent  divine  had 
commenced  his  studies  in  divinity  under  a  Puritan  and  Non-Con- 
formist, named  Thomas.  Recoiling  from  the  Antimonianism  which 
he  perceived  to  be  rapidly  growing  up  under  the  extremes  of  doctrine 
to  which  many  of  that  way  had  gone,  he  became  a  devoted  reader 
of  Grotius  and  Episcopius,  associating  with  those  writers,  the  works 
of  Hammond  and  Jeremy  Taylor,  wherein  he  perceived  no  little  sym- 
pathy with  the  views  of  the  former,  on  the  subject  of  justification. 
In  the  year  1669  was  first  published  his  Harmonia  Apostolica,  for 
the  reconciliation  of  the  Epistle  of  St.  James,  with  those  of  St.  Paul, 
in  reference  to  that  matter.  By  this  work,  far  more  than  any  other, 
was  the  standard  of  orthodoxy,  among  the  Divines  of  the  Church  of 
England,  on  justification  and  its  kindred  subjects,  reduced  to  that 
low  degree  which  afterwards  reigned  so  widely  in  the  times  of  the 
Non-Jurors,  and  which  went  on  debilitating  and  exanimating  the  re- 
ligion of  the  Anglican  Church  ;  till,  in  the  latter  part  of  the  last  cen- 
tury, by  "  the  renewing  of  the  Holy  Ghost,"  there  took  place  the 
contemporaneous  and  connected  blessings  of  the  revival  of  true,  spirit- 
ual piety,  and  the  return  of  the  teaching  and  preaching  of  the  doctrine 
of  the  Reformers,  as  to  the  sinner's  justification  before  God. 


PREFACE. 


ix 


But  greatly  as  the  Antinomian  abuses  during  the  time  of  the  Com- 
monwealth, followed  by  the  general  languor  in  regard  to  religious 
doctrine  which  the  excitements  of  that  stormy  period  had  left  upon 
the  public  mind,  and  the  flood  of  licentiousness  which  ensued,  had 
prepared  the  way  for  the  gradual  reception  of  such  doctrines  as  were 
taught  by  the  disciples  of  Bull,  going  beyond  their  teacher;  the 
famous  work  of  that  great  Master  did  not  appear  without  arousing 
the  strongest  opposition  to  its  doctrines,  as  an  abandonment  of  the 
principles  of  the  Reformation,  inconsistent  with  the  Articles  and 
Homilies  of  the  Church  of  England,  and  essentially  in  agreement 
with  the  vital  principle  of  Romanism.  "There  was  presently  (says 
Nelson,  in  his  Life  of  Bull)  no  small  alarm  both  i?i  the  Church  and 
out  of  it,  from  Mr.  Bull's  performance,  as  if  the  Church  of  England 
and  the  whole  Protestant  religion  were,  by  it,  in  danger.  For  his 
departing  herein  from  the  private  opinions  of  some  doctors  of  our 
Church,  was,  by  several,  interpreted  for  no  less  than  a  departing 
from  the  faith  by  her  delivered;  hence  there  arose  in  the  Church  no 
small  contention  whether  this  interpretation  of  Scripture  were  con- 
formable to  the  Articles  of  Religion,  and  the  Homily  of  Justification 
therein  referred  to;  some  maintained  with  our  author  that  it  was; 
some  doubted  about  it,  and  others  downright  denied  it,  and  con- 
denmed  it  as  heretical.  There  was  many  a  hard  censure  passed  upon 
the  book — yea,  there  were  not  wanting  then,  even  men  of  some  emi- 
nence in  our  Church,  who,  with  all  their  might,  opposed  him,  proba- 
bly out  of  a  well-meant  zeal,  and  would  certainly  have  overwhelmed 
him  and  his  doctrine,  had  it  been  possible." 

Thus  much  is  acknowledged  by  the  non-juring  Nelson,  who  fully 
embraced  the  views  of  Bull.  Among  the  Bishops  who  resisted  the 
influence  of  those  views,  the  one  who  proceeded  much  further  than 
any  of  his  brethren,  was  Morley,  Bishop  of  Winchester.  Lectures 
were  read  against  them,  before  the  University  of  Oxford,  by  Dr. 
Barlov/,  then  Margaret  Professor  of  Divinity,  afterwards  Bishop  of 
Lincoln.  1    But  the  most  conspicuous  writer  in  the  Church  of  Eng- 

1  The  present  Margaret  Professor,  Dr.  Fausset,.bas  followed  the  example  of 
his  learned  Predecessor,  in  having  published  strongly  against  the  new  and  en- 
larged edition  of  Bull's  doctrines,  as  exhibited  in  the  new  divinity  of  Oxford  ; 
while  the  Regius  Professor  of  Divinity,  Dr.  Hampden,  has  borne  a  noble  testi- 
mony to  the  truth,  against  the  same  errors,  in  a  late  Sermon  on  Justification  by 
faith. 

2* 


X 


PREFACE. 


land,  against  the  doctrines  of  Bull,  was  Dr.  Tully,  Principal  of  St. 
Edmund's  Hall,  Oxford,  a  divine  of  high  standing  in  the  University 
for  learning,  eloquence,  piety,  zeal,  and  usefulness.  This  writer 
was  amazed  at  the  indifference  or  insensibility  to  the  interests  of 
religion,  of  many  who  endeavoured  to  persuade  him  to  decline  the 
controversy,  on  the  ground  that  the  points  in  dispute  were  matters  of 
comparative  unimportance,  not  worth  the  risking  of  the  peace  of  the 
Church,  while  to  him  they  seemed  to  involve  "  the  most  noble  and 
momentous  of  all  controversies,"  and  to  put  in  jeopardy  "  the  very 
palladium  of  the  Reformation."  Under  this  conviction  he  published, 
in  1674,  a  Latin  Treatise,  entitled  Justification,  as  delivered  by 
St.  Paul,  ivithout  works,  asserted  and  illustrated  according  to  the 
sense  of  the  Church  of  England,  and  of  all  the  rest  of  the  Re- 
formed Churches,  against  the  late  innovators.'^''  In  the  publication 
of  this  work,  the  author  was  encouraged  by  Bishop  Morley,  who 
read  it  in  manuscript,  with  approbation.  Therein,  it  is  charged  that 
the  doctrine  of  Justification,  as  expounded  by  the  author  of  the  Har- 
monia,  "  was  properly  heretical,  as  being  contrary,  in  a  fundamental 
point,  to  the  testimony  of  Scripture,  and  against  the  opinion  of  the 
Catholic  fathers,  the  judgment  of  the  Church  of  England,  and  the 
determinations  of  all  the  foreign  reformed  churches." 

The  grand  question  in  dispute,  "the  Knvoazvrjv''  according  to  Dr. 
Tully,  was  expressed  precisely  as  in  the  ensuing  volume  we  have 
staled  the  main  question  between  Popery  and  Oxford  Divinity,  on 
the  one  hand,  and  the  doctrine  of  the  Anglican  Church,  on  the  other, 
viz.  "  what  is  that,  for  the  sake  of  which  God  may  receive  a  sinner 
to  grace,  may  acquit  him  from  the  curse  of  the  law,  and  make  him 
an  heir  of  everlasting  life."  ^  The  side  espoused  by  Dr.  Tully,  which 
was  precisely  that  of  justification  through  faith  only,  by  the  imputed 
righteousness  of  Christ,  was  maintained  by  reference  to  the  Ancient 
Fathers,  the  literal  and  grammatical  sense  of  the  Articles  and  Homi- 
lies of  the  Church  of  England,  and  the  testimony  of  her  most  famous 
divines,  such  as  Andrevves  and  Hooker. 

The  feeble  attempt  of  Bishop  Bull,  in  his  Apologia  to  answer  the 
appeal  of  Dr.  Tully,  to  the  standard  divines  of  the  Church,  and  the 
anxiety  of  his  biographer  to  claim  for  him  that  he  should  be  judged, 
not  by  the  Anglican  Reformers,  but  by  the  Ancient  Fathers,  and  the 


'  Apologia  pro  Harmonia,  Sect.  iii.   §  7. 


PREFACE. 


XI 


Holy  Scriptures,  are  strong  evidences  how  futile  was  considered  in 
that  day,  the  pretence  that  such  doctrine  as  that  of  the  Harmonia 
had  received  the  suffrages  of  those  divines  whom  the  Church  then 
looked  to,  as  her  standard  writers. 

If  it  shall  be  the  honour  of  this  volume,  in  any  degree,  to  reivive 
the  attention  of  the  members  of  the  Church,  especially  of  her  clergy, 
and  candidates  for  orders,  to  the  works  of  the  elder  divines  of  the 
Seventeenth  Century,  such  as  Usher,  Hall,  Hopkins,  Andrewes,  &c., 
as  well  as  to  those  of  the  age  preceding  them,  up  to  the  period  of  the 
Reformation,  so  that  the  nervous  and  clear  displays  of  divine  truth, 
as  therein  abounding,  and  as  distinguished  from  that  feeble,  confused 
and  mixed  mode  of  representing  the  way  of  salvation  which  charac- 
terises the  majority  of  the  more  modern  Anglican  divines,  shall  be- 
come more  thoroughly  studied  and  appreciated,  then,  whatever  be- 
comes of  Oxford  Divinity,  this  book  will  be  amply  rewarded. 

It  may  perhaps  be  considered  a  great  defect  of  this  volume  that  it 
does  not  institute  a  comparison  of  Oxford  Divinity  directly  with  the 
Scriptures.  The  author  must  not  be  understood  as  countenancing, 
by  this  omission,  the  idea  that  there  can  be  any  approach  to  a  final 
settlement  of  Christian  truth,  short  of  a  direct  appeal  to  the  Inspired 
Word.  But  all  objects  cannot  be  embraced  at  once.  Sometimes, 
the  recalling  of  the  doctrine  of  the  Church,  at  some  particular  period, 
may  be  of  more  benefit,  for  a  special  purpose,  than  even  the  exposi- 
tion of  the  Scriptures.  To  recall  the  great  principles  of  the  Refor- 
mation, as  illustrated  by  a  comparison  with  those  of  the  Church  of 
Rome,  and  the  Romanising  Divinity  of  Oxford,  seemed  to  the  author 
to  be  the  precise  desideratum  at  the  present  juncture,  and  of  dimen- 
sions sufficient  to  occupy  a  volume  by  itself.  He  is  fully  persuaded 
that  with  a  truly  Protestant  communion  the  most  direct  refutation  of 
Oxford  Divinity  is  itself.  Only  let  it  be  displayed  without  "resey're/" 
let  the  system  which  has  been  brought  before  the  public  so  skilfully 
and  reservedly,  by  heterogeneous  parts,  so  that  it  required  the  skill 
of  a  professional  anatomist,  to  find  out  their  place  in  the  body,  and 
to  form,  from  them,  any  accurate  idea  of  the  whole  frame-work,  be 
set  up  and  seen  in  its  own  proper  aspect ;  its  several  members  and 
joints,  and  dependencies,  and  connections,  and  humours,  and  issues, 
and  appetencies — all  presented !  Its  work  then  is  done.  Its  day  is 
ended.    The  Protestant  Church  is  too  much  alive  to  the  truth  that 


Xll 


PREFACE. 


Popery  is  the  Antichist,  "  that  Man  of  Sin,"  revealed  in  the  Scrip- 
tures, "  who  opposeth  and  exalteth  himself  above  all  that  is  called 
God,  or  that  is  worshipped,"  and  that  "  there  is  no  society  of  Chris- 
tians in  the  world,  where  Antinomianism  and  Libertinism  more 
reign,  than  among  the  Papists,  with  whose  very  faith  they  are  inter- 
woven,"^ not  to  be  turned  away,  in  entire  rejection,  from  a  system 
which,  as  will  be  shown  in  this  volume,  is  little  else  than  Popery 
restrained. 


1  Bull's  Works,  by  Nelson,  Sermon,  t. 


ERRATA. 


The  Author  must  ask  the  indulgence  of  the  reader,  towards  this  long  list,  on 
the  ground  that  during  the  printing  of  a  large  part  of  this  work,  the  distance 
hetween  Ohio  and  Philadelphia,  prevented  his  seeing  the  proof-sheets.  No 
diligence,  or  care,  on  the  part  of  proof-readers,  can  supply  the  place  of  the  Au- 
thor's eye,  especially  in  punctuation. 

Page  vi,  line  14, /or  arms,  read  errors. 

39,  note,/o?'  Socinnus,  read  Socinus. 
74,  line  10,  for  39,  read  231  and  252. 
99,  4,  after  only  read  one. 

100,  2,  strike  out  not. 

101,  6, /or  Bishop,  reaf/ Doctor. 
104,  5,  after  charge,  put  a  comma. 

109,  note,/or  Justif.  read  Jonah. 

110,  line   6, /or  Titons,  rea^/ Titans. 

113,  10,  before  they  put  inverted  commas. 

114,  18,  for  divinities,  reac/ divinity . 
118,         1 8, /or  it,  reaf/ they. 

122,  3, /or  definitiones,  read  disputationes. 

123,  note,  next  to  last  line,  strike  out  Bishop. 
128,  line   9,  after  ^'wa/i^?/,  put  inverted  commas. 

note,  last  line, /or  antem,  read  autem. 

157,  line   3,  after  imputed,  put  a  semicolon. 

158,  21, /or  within,  read  in. 
22,  for  in,  read  within. 

160,  note,/or  dixeri,  read  dixerit. 

161,  last  line,/or  signify,  /'ear/ signifying. 
164,  next  last  line, /or  praecedent,  read  praecedunt, 
168,  line  29,  after  re;zewa^,  put  inverted  commas. 


200, 

22,  for  aliam,  read  alium. 

211, 

1,/or  doctrine,  -where  repeated,  read  office. 

217, 

4,  from  bottom  of  note/or  est,  read  et. 

222, 

\l,for  latter  r^eari former. 

226, 

20,  after  promise,  read  of,  and  for  of,  read  to. 

228, 

13,  after  ix,  read  and. 

230, 

26, /or  or,  read  nor. 

232, 

6,  of  note, /or  haberant,  read  habebant. 

253, 

25, /or  Schoolmen,  read  Schoolman. 

327, 

4,  from  bottom,  after  point,  read  of. 

332, 

8,  for  above,  read  alone. 

note,  line  4th  from  bottom, /or  they,  read  he. 


Page  343,  line  14,  after  have,  read  not,  and /or  no,  read  some. 

353,  2,  read  sustaining,  and  lino  15,/or  inspirative,  read  inoperative. 

356,  5,  from  bottom, /or  and,  read  as. 

358,  6    "         "     for  possession,  read  possessor. 

365,  Contents,>r  Froth,  read  Frith,  and  for  Bethil,  read  Bethell. 

371,  next  to  last  line,  erase  as. 

372,  line  2, /or  or,  read  so. 
395,  note,/or  can,  read  caen. 

403,  to  3d  citation  put  a  reference  to  Pusey^s  Vieivs  of  Bap.  p.  188,  195.- 

408,  note,  line  7,  after  adults,  put  not. 

409,  line  18,  erase  Bishop. 

25,  after  confounding, />m^  a  period. 
413,  6, /or  creature,  read  creation. 

433,  at  end  of  citation,  refer  to  Fathers  of  Eng.  Ch.  viii.  p.  234,  5. 
436, /or  Tracts  read  Tract. 
441,  line  19,  after  zeal,  read  for. 

450,  at  end  of  citation,  refer  io  JSTeiv man* s  Led.  p.  441,  2. 
454,  line  21,  after  him, put  with. 

456,       20,  after  facit,  erase  the  comma,  and  read  justitiam. 
478,  note,  line  1,  for  the  second  of,  read /or. 

485,  line  7, /or  putatitiam,  read  putativam. 

486,  4,  from  bottom,  read  titulum. 
489,       ^,for  casual,  read  causal. 

523,       4th  Une  from  bottom, /or  their,  read  his. 

526,  "       "        "       for  making,  read  marking. 

530,  6, /or  successor,  rea J  succession. 

531,  13,/or  Burer,  read  Bucer. 
536,       5,/er  cautious,  read  crowded. 

546,  erase  all  from  for  in  line  19  to  self-knotvledge  in  line  23. 
When  the  Tracts  for  the  Times  are  quoted,  without  naming  the  Edition,  the 
American  is  intended.    This  rule  has  three  exceptions.    The  references  on 
pages  203,  227,  255  are  to  the  English  Ed.    The  Am.  Ed.  of  Dr.  Pusey's  Let- 
ter is  always  referred  to — so  of  Hook's  Call  to  Union. 


CONTENTS. 


Page. 

PREFACE.   V 


CHAPTER  I. 


Introductory  Remarks — Oxford  Divinity  before  the  publication  of  Dr. 
Pusey's  Letter — Effect  of  that  Letter — Convictions  of  the  present  Au- 
thor— Reasons  for  this  pubhcation — The  doctrine  of  Justification  select- 
ed, as  that  by  which  the  Romanism  of  Oxford  Divinity  may  be  most 
thoroughly  tried — That  this  was  the  great  point  of  the  Reformers, 
shown  from  Hooker,  &c. — Three  presumptive  objections  to  the  charge 
of  Romanism,  from  the  character  of  Oxford  Divines  removed — The 
views  of  the  writer  as  to  the  designs  and  snares  of  Satan   9 

CHAPTER  n. 

STATEMENTS  PREPARATORY  TO  THE   RIGHT  KSTIMATIOX  OF  THE  OXFORD 
DOCTRIJJE  OF  JUSTIFICATIOX. 

Professions  of  Oxford  Divines  concerning  the  conformity  of  their  doctrine 
with  that  of  the  Church  of  England — Their  account  of  Ultra-Protest- 
antism— The  identity  of  their  system  with  that  of  Alexander  Knox — 
The  condemnation  of  the  latter,  as  Romish  and  dangerous,  by  certain 
eminent  divines,  of  diverse  schools  in  the  Church  of  England,  before 
its  development,  at  Oxford,  had  excited  any  special  notice  35 


CMAPi'ER  IH. 

THE  DOCTRINE  OF  OXFOUIJ  UIVIXITY  AS  TO  THE  RIGHTEOUSNESS  OF  JUS- 
TIFICATION, EXHIBITED. 

To  set  forth  the  precise  doctrine  of  Oxford  Divinity,  as  to  the  way  of  Jus- 
tification, the  object  of  this  chapter. — The  main  question  of  Hooker,  as 
to  the  Romish  doctrine,  adopted  here — The  great  point  of  enquiry 
stated — The  Scriptural  use  of  the  word  Justification — Two  kinds  of 
righteousness,  asserted  by  Hooker,  Beveridge,  Andrewes — Only  one  by 


XIV 


CONTENTS. 


Page. 

Oxfordisra — This  opens  the  door  to  the  divinity  of  Oxford,  as  well  as 
of  Rome — That  one  righteousness,  made  identical  with  Sanctification — 
What  is  meant  in  this  divinity  by  Imputation,  Accounted,  &c. — Ex- 
tended proof  that  it  makes  Sanctification  the  same  as  Justification — 
The  position  in  which  it  puts  the  cross  of  Christ — The  use  it  makes  of 
the  merits  and  passion  of  Christ — Its  effect  upon  the  consolations  of 
the  believer — Singular  effort  to  escape  from  being  identified  with  Ko- 
manism,  by  denying  what  was  before  asserted  as  to  Sanctification  and 
Justification  being  essentially  one — The  same  in  Mr.  Knox — This  doc- 
trine shown  in  Osiander — Concluding  observations   57 

CHAPTER  IV. 

THE  DOCTRINK  OF  OXFORD  DITIJTITT,  AS  TO  THE  niGHTEOTTSXESS  OF  JUS- 
TIFICATION, COMPARED  WITH  THAT  OF  THE  SCHOOLXEN. 

Origin  of  the  Romish  doctrine  of  Justification  in  the  self-righteousness 
of  the  human  heart — Advance  until  the  age  of  the  Schoolmen — The 
origin  of  Scholastic  Theology — Character  of  the  Schoolmen — Fitness 
of  the  age  for  the  rapid  growth  of  error — The  corruptions  of  Romanism 
which  were  matured  in  that  age — The  seven  sacraments — Sacramental 
Confession — Transubstantiation — Half  Communion — Image  w^orship 
— Purgatory — Indulgences — The  same  age,  as  was  to  be  expected,  gave 
birth  to  the  Romish  doctrine  of  Justification — Connection  between  the 
Schoolmen  and  the  divines  of  Trent — Three  propositions  to  show  the 
identity  of  the  doctrine  of  Oxfordism  with  that  of  the  Schoolmen. — 
Similar  tendencies — Concluding  remarks — Note,  showing  the  resem- 
blance between  the  doctrine  of  Oxford,  and  that  of  the  eaily  Quakers.  107 

CHAPTER  V. 

THB  DOCTHIlfB  OF  OXFORD  DlTIIflTT,  AS  TO  THE  RIGHTE0T7SXESS  OF  JUS- 
TIFICATION, COMPARED  WITH  THAT   OF  THE  COUNCIL  OF  TRENT. 

Recapitulation — Language  of  the  Council  of  Trent — State  of  the  Ques- 
tion at  the  Reformation,  and  now,  from  Chemnitz,  Jackson,  Hall,  Usher, 
Hooker — Holiness  required  at  least  as  much  by  Protestants  as  Roman- 
ists— Oxford  interpretation  of  single  passages  of  Scripture,  compared 
with  those  of  Romish  divines — Three  particulars  in  which  Oxford  di- 
vines claim  to  be  regarded  as  not  conformed  to  Romanism — These  con- 
sidered, and  shown  to  make  such  conformity  the  more  obvious — The 
vindication  drawn  from  the  Romish  claim  of  merit,  answered — Hooker's 
argument  against  the  Romish  doctrine  of  merit,  shown  to  be  applicable, 
in  the  same  way,  to  Oxfordism — Concluding  remarks  139 


CONTENTS. 


XV 


CHAPTER  VI. 


THE  DOCTRINE  OF  OXOHD  DIVINITY,  AS  TO  THE  NATURE  AND  OFFICE  OF 
JUSTIFYING  FAITH,  KXUIBITED,  AND  COMPARED  WITH  THAT  OF  THE 
ROMISH  CHURCH. 

Page. 

The  influence  of  the  doctrine  of  Justification,  whether  true  or  false,  upon 
the  body  of  divinity,  in  general — The  sameness  of  ihe  Oxford  doctrine 
and  that  of  Rome,  tested  by  the  sameness  of  influence  upon  connected 
and  subordinate  doctrines — This,  first  exhibited  as  to  the  doctrine  of 
Justifying  Faith — The  doctrine  of  Faith,  as  held  in  the  Romish  Church, 
stated  in  six  propositions — The  doctrine  of  Oxford  stated  in  compari- 
son, under  the  same  propositions,  showing  the  nature  and  office  of 
Faith,  before  Baptism,  in  Baptism,  and  after  Baptism — The  profession 
of  making  Faith  the  sole  internal  instrument  of  Justification  examined 
and  shown  to  be  without  any  reality — Justification  by  Faith,  in  this 
system,  nothing  but  Justification  by  Christianity — A  rebuke  from 
Bishop  Beveridge  177 


CHAPTER  Vir. 

THE  DOCTRINE  OF  OXFORD  DIVINITY,  AS  TO  THE  OFFICE  AND  EFFICACY 
OF  THE  SACRAMENTS,  ESPECIALLY  OF  BAPTISM,  COMPARED  WITH  THAT 
OF  THE  ROMISH  CHURCH. 


Tendency  of  all  such  principles,  as  that  of  Justification  in  Oxford  Divinity, 
to  magnify  external  ceremonies,  and  ultimately  to  make  all  religion  con- 
sist in  them — This  tendency  prominent  in  regard  to  the  Sacraments — 
Baptismal  Justification  similarly  held  by  the  Romish  Church  and  the 
Divines  of  Oxford — The  opu?  opevatum  of  Baptism  held  alike  by  both 
— Effect  of  this,  the  same  in  both,  in  keeping  out  of  view  the  truth,  that 
the  Sacraments  are  signs,  and  identifying  the  visible  sign  with  the  in- 
visible grace — The  tendency  to  transubstaniiation,  in  Oxford  Divinity, 
explained  from  the  same  cause — The  false  and  injurious  comparison  be- 
tween the  spiritual  nature  of  the  Sacraments  of  the  Old  and  New  Tes- 
taments, resulting  alike  from  Romish  and  Oxford  Divinity — Extract 
from  Jeremy  Taylor — Limbus  Patrum — Bishop  Burnet  on  Sacramental 
Justification  211 

CHAPTER  vnr. 

DOCTRINE  OF  OXFORD    DIVINITY   FURTHER   EXHIBITED    BY  ITS  EFFECTS 
UPON   OTHER  DOCTRINES  AND  PARTS  OF  CHRISTIANITY. 

Effects  upon  the  doctrine  of  Original  Sin  ;  Testimony  of  Jackson  to  the 
Peculiar  Romanism  of  these  results — Sin  alter  Baptism — Mortal  and 


XVI 


CONTENTS. 


Page. 

Venial  Sins — Tendencies  of  Oxford  Divinity  to  the  doctrine  of  Purga- 
tory— to  Prayers  for  the  dead — Invocation  of  Saints — Transubstantia- 
tion — Working  of  Miracles — Auricular  Confession — Extreme  Unction 
— Anointing  at  Baptism  and  Confirmation — Additional  matters  of  Rea- 
toration  contemplated — Sacramental  character  of  Marriage  counte- 
nanced—  Use  of  Romish  Prayer  Books  and  Rules  of  Fasting — Favour 
to  Image-Worship — Christian  Holiness — Tradition  ;  Why  this  topic 
reserved  to  the  last — Extracts  from  the  late  Charge  of  Bishop  Wilson.  237 

CHAPTER  IX. 

THE  DOCTllINE  OF  OXFORD  DIVIXITY  AS  TO  THE  RIGHTEOUSXESS  OF  JUS- 
TIFICATION, AJfD  THE  NATURE  AND  OFFICE  OF  FAITH,  COMPARED  "WITH 
THAT  OF  THE  ANGLICAN  CHURCH. 

Matter  of  mortification  that  such  comparison  is  necessary — A  general  ac- 
count of  the  doctrinal  standards  of  the  Anglican  Church — Statement 
of  the  questions  investigated  in  this  Chapter — Arguments  from  the  as- 
sertion of  Dr.  Pusey  that  the  Article  of  Justification  says  nothing  of 
what  Justification  consists  in — The  Articles  xi,  xii,  and  xiii — Exposi- 
tion of  the  xi,  from  the  language  of  its  Authors  elsewhere — From  its 
own  peculiar  precision  as  to  the  office  of  faith — Homilies  quoted  and 
expounded — Seven  difficulties  into  which  the  Oxford  doctrines  are 
brought  by  the  language  of  the  Article  and  Homilies— Each  made  use 
of  as  an  evidence  against  the  consistency  of  that  Divinity  with  that  of 
the  Anglican  Church  317 


CHAPTER  X. 

THE    DOCTllISE   OP  OXFORD  DITINITT    AS   TO    BAPTISMAL  JUSTIFICA- 
TION, COMPARED  WITH  THAT  OF  THE  ANGLICAN  CHURCH. 

Recapitulation  of  the  Oxford  and  Romish  Doctrines — Difference  between 
remission  of  Original  Sin  as  held  by  the  Anglican  Church,  and  the  Ox- 
ford Divines — Testimony  of  Jackson — Baptismal  Justification  of  Adults 
— A  priori  reason  for  believing  that  the  Anglican  and  Oxford  doctrines 
are  diverse  on  this  head — Silence  of  the  Articles  and  Homilies  unac- 
countable if  the  Oxford  doctrine  were  that  of  the  Church — Language 
of  the  Articles  and  Homilies  irreconcilable  with  the  Oxford  doctrine — 
Language  of  Scripture,  Fathers,  English  divines,  needs  explanation — 
Evidence  of  necessity  of  other  interpretation  than  Oxfordism  gives — 
Barrow — Beveridge — Hooper — Frith — Hooker — Hall — Homilies- 
Usher — Beveridge — Inconsistencies  in  English  divines,  according  to 


CONTENTS. 


xvii 


Page 

the  Oxford  interpretation — Barrow — Hooker — St.  Bernard — Jewel — 
Inconsistencies  of  Augustine  and  other  Fathers  according  to  the  Ox- 
ford doctrine — True  doctrine  shown  from  Bishops  Hooper,  Beveridge, 
and  Taylor — Mode  of  interpreting  the  strong  language  of  the  old  di- 
vines, &c. — Bishop  Bethell's  mode  rejected  as  too  low — Strange  incon- 
sistencies of  Oxford  divines — Mode  of  Interpretation  illustrated  from 
Augustine,  Jewel,  from  language  of  Hooker,  &c. — Concerning  the 
membership  of  infants  in  the  Church  before  Baptism;  common  lan- 
guage concerning  a  call  to  the  ministry  and  language  of  Scripture  as  to 
the  baptism  of  Christ — Further  illustration  from  common  law  terms — 
application  to  language  of  Nowell's  Catechism — Passages  from  Whit- 
gift,  and  Dr.  Haddon — Concluding  observations — Extract  from  Bishop 
Hopkins  on  the  Doctrine  of  Baptism  365 

CHAPTER  XI. 

THE  DOCTRINE  OF  OXFORD  DITINITT  AS  TO  THE  RIGHTEOUSNESS  OF  JITS- 
TIFICATIOX  AND  THE  OFFICE  OF  FAITH,  COMPARED  WITH  THAT  OF 
STANDARD  DIVINES  OF  THE  ANGLICAN  CHURCH. 

Majorities  in  such  a  question  of  no  avail — Laud's  testimony — Divines  of 
the  17th  Century  especially  relied  on  by  the  Oxford  writers — The  same 
mainly  employed  in  this  Chapter — Testimony  of  Oxford  writers  to  the 
eminent  authority  of  Hooker — His  views  acknowledged  to  be  in  entire 
opposition  to  those  of  this  divinity  on  Justification — Force  of  the  con- 
fession— Singular  attempt  to  escape  its  force — Citations  from  Hooker — 
Tyndale — Barnes — Cranmer — Bishop  Hooper — Bishop  Latimer — Ed- 
ward VI.  Catechism — Confession  of  Martyrs  and  Divines  in  Prison — 
Nowell's  Catechism — Haddon  and  Fox  against  Osorius — Perkins — 
Bishop  Downame — Bishop  Andrewes  — Mede — Bishop  Hall — Bishop 
Nicholson — Archbishop  Usher — Bishop  Hopkins — Bishop  Beveridge.  447 

CHAPTER  XIL 

Concluding  Obsers'ations  507 


3* 


OXFORD  DIVINITY  COMPARED,  &c. 


CHAPTER  1. 

Introductory  Remarks — Oxford  Divinity  before  the  publication  of  Dr.  Pusey's 
Letter — Effect  of  that  Letter — Convictions  of  the  present  Author — Reasons 
for  this  publication — The  doctrine  of  Justification  selected,  as  that  by  which 
the  Romanism  of  Oxford  Divinity  may  be  most  thoroughly  tried — That  this 
was  the  great  point  of  the  Reformers,  shown  from  Hooker,  &c. — Three  pre- 
sumptive objections  to  the  charge  of  Romanism,  from  the  character  of  Oxford 
Divines  removed — The  views  of  the  writer  as  to  the  designs  and  snares  of 
Satan. 

Few  observers  of  v^hat  is  passing  in  the  Christian 
Church,  can  fail  to  be  aware  that  what  is  called  Oxford 
Divinity,  meaning,  by  that  term,  not  the  dominant 
theological  system  of  the  University  of  Oxford,  but 
that  which  is  far  from  holding  a  rank  so  distinguished, 
the  peculiar  doctrines  of  certain  scholars  and  divines 
of  high  standing  in  that  Institution,  has  reached  a 
position  of  prominence,  in  the  public  view,  of  great 
importance,  for  evil  or  good  to  the  vital  interests  of 
religion.  It  is  also  a  matter  of  notoriety  that  this  di- 
vinity, zealously  urged  as  the  true  doctrine  of  the 
English  Church,  and  the  Scriptures,  sustained  by 
singular  industry  of  the  pen  and  press,  and  certainly 
with  great  vigour  of  mind,  and  diligence  of  research, 
is  confidently  accused,  by  writers  of  no  less  repute 
for  all  soundness  of  mind  and  adornment  of  learning 
2 


10 


and  piety,  of  a  lamentable  departure  from  the  true 
doctrines  of  the  Gospel,  and  of  the  Church  of  Eng- 
land; as  also  of  a  correspondent  approximation  to 
those  doctrinal  corruptions  of  the  Church  of  Rome  of 
which  the  Temple  of  God,  in  England,  was  cleansed, 
at  the  blessed  era  of  the  Protestant  Reformation. 

Between  the  two  sides  of  the  accusers  and  accused, 
thus  arranged,  the  controversy  was  carried  on  for 
some  time,  abroad,  before  the  friends  of  Christian 
truth,  in  this  country,  were  called  to  take  any  part; 
except  as  spectators,  deeply  interested  in  the  ani- 
mated disputations  of  their  transatlantic  brethren. 
At  length,  however,  it  was  thought  expedient  by 
some  of  those  spectators,  that  the  controversy  should 
be  set  up  in  the  Church  of  this  land,  and  that  the 
publications  on  one  side,  viz.  that  of  the  Oxford  di- 
vines, should  have  a  reprint  here.  Hence  the  far- 
famed  Tracts  for  the  Times  were  issued  from  the 
press  of  New  York,  preceded  by  the  promise  of  the 
reprint  of  a  large  selection  of  other  English  publi- 
cations on  the  same  side  of  the  question.  During 
the  progress  of  these  works,  the  most  zealous  efforts 
have  been  made  to  commend  the  peculiarities  of  Ox- 
ford Divinity  to  the  diligent  reading,  and  confidential 
reception,  of  the  clergy  and  laity  of  this  country. 
Thus  has  the  controversy  been  forced  upon  those 
who,  while  the  publications  were  confined  to  a  trans- 
atlantic Church,  and  only  introduced  among  us  by 
scanty  importations,  would  have  been  content  to  leave 
it  with  those  to  whom  it  especially  belonged,  however 
deeply  convinced  themselves,  that  Oxford  Divinity 
was  most  justly  accused. 

As  yet,  however,  the  name,  Oxford  Divinity,  seem- 


11 


ed  to  very  many  readers,  like  its  famous  aversion 
Ultra-Protestantism,  a  something  indeed  of  no  unpor- 
tentous  mien,  but  exceedingly  difficult  to  reduce  into 
distinct  expression  and  shape.  The  Tracts  were  by 
no  means  a  full,  systematic,  or  satisfactory  develop- 
ment of  this  divinity.  They  displayed  its  peculiari- 
ties only  here  and  there;  in  many  of  their  earlier 
portions,  scarcely  at  all,  except  to  a  practised  eye; 
while  they  contained  so  much  that  was  unquestion- 
ably good ;  so  much,  in  a  somewhat  new  relation,  of 
what  we  had  always  held  to  be  true  and  necessary, 
especially  as  to  points  of  defect  in  the  outward  being 
of  the  Church  of  England  as  she  is  oppressed  and 
disfranchised  by  the  State,  that  scarcely  any  unpro- 
fessional reader  would  discover  in  the  Tracts  alone 
the  several  distinctive  doctrines  of  the  system.  In- 
deed it  is  questionable  whether  any  reader,  having  no 
other  aids,  would  be  able,  without  much  care,  and  fa- 
miliarity with  the  precise  bearings  of  the  Romish  con- 
troversy, as  it  was  waged  by  the  Reformers,  to  con- 
struct in  his  own  mind,  the  whole  edifice  of  that  sys- 
tem. The  difficulty  would  be,  not  in  discovering 
divers  places  in  the  Tracts  to  which  a  mind  well  in- 
structed in  the  Gospel,  and  thoroughly  protesting 
against  Romanism,  would  most  seriously  except.  It 
would  be  rather  in  the  gradual  manner  in  w^hich  these 
developments  are  brought  before  the  reader,  in  pro- 
portion as  his  mind  may  be  expected  to  become  pre- 
pared to  bear  them.  It  would  lie  also  in  the  disjointed 
scattering  of  such  parts  over  the  whole  surface  of  the 
Tracts,  the  intervals  being  filled  in  with  an  attrac- 
tive display  of  original  matter  or  of  selections  from 
approved  writers,  to  which  none  could  except. 


12 


But  Oxford  Divinity  is  by  no  means  confined  to 
Oxford  Tracts,  technically  so  called.  Some  of  them 
indeed  are  sufficiently  objectionable.  Many,  how- 
ever, contain  a  sort  of  material  which,  when  read  by 
itself,  insulated  from  the  more  direct  manifestations 
of  the  system,  may  be,  not  only  innocent,  but  useful. 
It  would  be  singular  indeed,  if  works  so  voluminous, 
abounding  in  extracts  from  so  many  of  the  best  di- 
vines of  the  Church  of  England,  and  composed 
throughout  by  learned  and  estimable  men,  should  not 
contain  a  great  deal  of  useful  knowledge,  of  sound 
and  valuable  discussion,  and  of  practical  principle 
important  to  be  had  in  remembrance.  Read  Car- 
dinal Bellarmine's  defence  of  Popery !  May  not  as 
much  be  said  of  the  works  of  that  learned  champion 
of  the  decrees  of  Trent?  Read  the  works  of  Soci- 
nus !  May  not  as  much  be  said  of  the  writings  of 
that  learned,  acute,  zealous  originator  of  the  modern 
school  of  Unitarian  divinity  ?  Surely  it  is  but  a  poor 
voucher  for  the  system  inculcated  in  any  work  of  the- 
ology, to  say  that  many  of  its  parts,  taken  in  separa- 
tion from  each  other,  are  sound  and  useful.  Many  a 
man  is  slowly  dying  with  disease  at  the  vitals,  whose 
hands  or  feet  are  still  capable  of  useful  service. 

Oxford  Divinity  is  represented  partly  in  the  Tracts, 
but  in  other  writings  also  of  various  authors,  some  of 
whom  are  known  as  leaders,  others  as  followers,  all 
disclaiming  the  name  of  being  connected  together  as 
a  school  or  a  party,  or  in  any  way  to  be  associated 
but  as  having  been  raised  up,  in  the  same  age,  un- 
der the  same  divine  providence  and  teaching,  to  tes- 
tify against  the  same  departures  from  primitive  truth, 
and  in  favour  of  the  same  restoration  of  the  Church 


13 


Catholic  from  the  supposed  disintegrating  influences 
of  what  they  have  united  in  branding  as  Ultra  Pro- 
testantism. In  this  concert  of  action  and  purpose, 
and  real  system,  so  long  as  there  was  no  common 
symbol  or  confession  marking  out  their  common  pecu- 
liarities, it  would  not  unfrequently  occur  that  an  at- 
tempt to  designate  the  doctrines  of  the  class,  by 
particulars  from  individuals,  would  be  met  by  the 
answer  that  Oxford  Divinity  was  not  responsible  for 
whatever  might  appear  in  the  writings  of  all  who 
professed  to  coincide  with  that  way. 

This  difficult  diffusiveness  of  essence,  without  cor- 
porate tangibiUty,  has  been,  in  some  wise,  removed  by 
the  publication  in  England,  and  the  reprint  in  this 
country,  of  ''A  Letter"  by  the  Eev.  E.  B.  Pusey,  D.D., 
Regius  Professor  of  Hebrew,  in  the  University  of  Ox- 
ford, addressed  to  the  Bishop  of  Oxford; — a  work  of 
more  than  two  hundred  well  filled  pages,  and  purport- 
ing to  contain,  in  behalf  of  the  author,  and  his  fellow- 
labourers,  a  declaration  of  faith  on  the  points  whereon 
they  have  been  accused,  with  a  special  view  to  a  vin- 
dication of  their  doctrines  from  the  charge  of  a  ten- 
dency to  Romanism.  The  object  of  the  author  of 
that  Letter  is,  in  his  own  words,  to  lay  before  the 
Bishop  ^'An  explicit  confesssionJ' 

How  far  the  confession  is  explicit  on  all  points,  pro- 
fessedly exhibited,  may  hereafter  appear.  How  far 
it  tends  to  remove  the  imputation  of  a  dangerous  ten- 
dency to  Romanism,  need  not  yet  be  said.  It  cer- 
tainly places  the  question  of  Oxford  Divinity — rvhat 
it  is  J  what  it  is  responsible for,  and  where  it  is  to  hefoimdy 
in  a  much  more  satisfactory  position  for  investigation 
than  that  in  which  it  appeared  before.    Its  distinct 


14 


mention  of  other  vouchers  beside  itself,  particularly 
the  Lectures  of  Mr.  Newman  on  Justification,  as  con- 
taining an  exhibition  of  Oxford  Divinity  equally  au- 
thentic and  responsible  with  itself,  enable  the  inquirer 
to  embrace  a  wide  field  of  reference  without  fear  of 
depending  upon  authorities  which  might  afterwards 
be  called  in  question. 

The  present  writer  has  devoted  a  long  time  and  a 
great  deal  of  pains  to  the  study  of  the  system,  as  ex- 
hibited in  the  several  sources  to  which  the  Letter  of 
Dr.  Pusey  has  opened  the  way.  With  great  truth  he 
can  say  that  he  has  diligently  studied  the  system, 
and  that  too  with  every  effort  to  judge  it  fairly,  kindly, 
conscientiously,  and  with  frequent  prayer  to  know 
the  truth  with  regard  to  a  movement  which  promises 
so  much  influence,  good  or  evil,  upon  the  state  of  Re- 
ligion in  the  Protestant  Churches. 

He  is  constrained  to  say  that  every  further  step  of 
insight  into  what  is  indeed  a  thoroughly  wrought, 
highly  complex,  and  deep-laid  scheme  or  system  of 
doctrine,  (much  as  the  name  of  system  is  rejected  by 
its  advocates)  has  produced  but  a  deeper  and  deeper 
conviction  on  his  mind  that  whatever  the  intention  or 
supposition  of  those  who  maintain  it,  it  is  a  systematic 
abandonment  of  the  vital  and  distinguishing  princi- 
ples of  the  Protestant  faith,  and  a  systematic  adoption 
of  that  very  root  and  heart  of  Romanism,  whence  has 
issued  the  life  of  all  its  ramified  corruptions  and  de- 
formities. In  this  declaration  it  is  not  meant  that  all 
the  divers  particulars — all  the  far-reaching  extremi- 
ties of  error  and  corruption  into  which  the  system  of 
Romanism  has  spread,  and  by  which,  far  more  than 
by  its  deep-rooted  principles,  it  is  known  in  modern 


15 


controversy,  are  manifest  in  the  system  under  consid- 
eration.— Far  from  it.  Romanism  did  not  grow  into 
its  present  stature  and  wide  extension  of  limb  and 
shade  in  an  age.  But  in  the  essential  and  character- 
istic life  of  its  divinity  it  existed  nevertheless,  and  was 
no  less  Romanism  when  modestly  sending  out  its 
feelers,  and  quietly  widening  its  under-ground  roots 
and  shooting  forth  its  branches,  as  the  times  allowed, 
than  it  is  Romanism  now,  in  all  its  maturity  and 
boastfulness.  And  so  may  Oxford  Divinity  be  essen- 
tially Romish  Divinity,  built  on  the  same  foundations, 
squared  with  reference  to  the  same  cardinal  points, 
and  by  the  law  of  its  own  nature,  necessarily  proceed- 
ing, in  proportion  as  room  is  given,  and  the  Times" 
will  bear,  to  make  itself  known  in  all  those  evils  to 
the  Gospel  of  Christ  by  which  the  sway  of  Roman- 
ism has  been  so  lamentably  distinguished ;  while  as 
yet,  being  truly  a  system  ^^for  the  times it  may  not 
be  Romanism  in  such  overt  self-confession  and  unre- 
served manifestation,  before  an  unprepared  commu- 
nity, or  even  in  the  unprepared  minds  of  its  imma- 
ture, but  growing  disciples,  as  to  strike  the  common 
eye,  or  be  generally  recognized,  as  of  the  house  and 
lineage  of  Popery. 

The  present  writer  is  fully  convinced  that  such  is 
the  precise  character  and  such  are  the  certain  results 
of  Oxford  Divinity,  in  proportion  as  its  tendencies 
shall  have  time  and  room  to  develop  themselves. 
Every  additional  examination  of  the  system,  as  addi- 
tional documents  have  appeared  from  its  advocates,  or 
a  closer  dissection,  of  those  long  in  hand,  has  been 
made,  has  only  rendered  this  conviction  more  and 
more  immoveable.    Instead  of  this  conviction  being 


16 


in  any  degree  impaired  by  the  consideration  that  sun- 
dry branches  of  Romanism  have  not  been  avowed,  or 
have  been  really  opposed  by  the  advocates  of  this  sys- 
tem; the  fact  only  shows  that,  if  their  doctrine  be 
Romanism,  in  essential  character  and  influence,  its 
imperfect  ramification,  by  making  the  evil  more  invi- 
sible, only  renders  it  the  more  dangerous.  A  more 
rapid  development  would  be  the  better  warning  to 
the  unwary  and  would  arouse  a  more  vigorous  ef- 
fort for  its  extinction. 

Under  the  serious  and  painful  conviction,  thus  ex- 
pressed, and  in  consideration  of  the  many  internal 
attractions  of  learning,  and  of  bold  pretension  to  pri- 
mitive simplicity  and  purity  under  which  this  system 
appears;  accompanied,  as  it  is,  by  the  influence  of 
distinguished  scholars  and  divines,  and  emanating 
from  one  of  the  two  great  Universities  of  our  Mo- 
ther Church  of  England;  it  has  seemed  to  the  pre- 
sent writer  to  be  a  duty  arising  out  of  his  relation  to 
the  Church  Catholic,  and  his  more  immediate  rela- 
tion to  the  clergy,  candidates  for  orders,  and  laity  of 
his  own  Diocese,  to  lay  before  the  public  an  exhibi- 
tion of  this  system,  in  its  essential  principles,  as 
compared  with  the  doctrines  common  to  the  Pro- 
testant Episcopal  Churches  of  England  and  Amer- 
ica, on  the  one  side,  and  those  of  the  Church  of 
Rome,  on  the  other.  And  this  he  conceives  to  be  the 
more  necessary,  because,  from  the  manner  in  which 
this  Divinity  is  made  to  stand  before  the  reader,  the 
beautiful  garments  in  which  it  is  invested,  the  unex- 
plained phraseology  it  sometimes  uses,  but  especially 
because  the  main  positions  and  fundamental  interests 
of  the  Romish  controversy  as  carried  on  by  the  Re- 


17 


formers  of  England  and  the  Continent,  in  common, 
have  passed  so  much  out  of  mind,  and  men  are  accus- 
tomed to  contemplate  Romanism,  rather  in  its  ex- 
tremities, than  its  root  and  trunk,  and  to  aim  at  cutting 
off  its  limbs,  instead  of  taking  away  its  heart,  and 
thus  are  not  ready  to  compare  with  it  a  system 
which,  though  it  may  have  put  out  comparatively  few 
branches  into  the  upper  air,  has  yet  all  the  root  and 
trunk  and  life  of  Romanism,  ready  to  ramify  just  as 
fast  as  the  ''Times"  shall  be  prepared ; — for  these  rea- 
sons the  writer  considers  it  the  more  necessary  that 
so  much  attention  should  be  devoted  to  that  system  as 
it  is  about  to  receive  in  this  volume.  He  may  be 
charged  with  great  presumption  in  attempting  to  dis- 
cover in  the  writings,  under  consideration,  what  their 
own  authors,  so  learned  and  acute,  and  their  friends, 
so  learned  and  acute,  seem  not  to  have  discovered ; 
and  in  attempting  to  arraign  on  the  charge  of  such 
serious  error,  the  opinions  of  divines  at  whose  feet  it 
would  be  no  evidence  of  humility  that  he  should  be 
ready  and  glad  to  sit,  as  well  for  examples  of  per- 
sonal excellence,  as  for  the  benefit  of  deep  thought 
and  various  and  matured  erudition.  But  in  the 
words  of  Mr.  Newman,  Bij-standers  see  our  minds'^ 
It  may  be  added.  Bystanders  of  very  inferior  capacity 
may  see  our  minds,  when  w^e  do  not.  A  very  skilful 
physician  may  be  blind  to  his  own  malady;  while  to 
one  of  very  inferior  skill  it  may  be  quite  evident;  and 
that,  precisely  because  he  is  a  by-stander.  But  pre- 
sumptuous, or  not,  the  way  of  duty  seems  plain ;  then 
with  no  profession  but  that  of  an  honest,  single, 
prayerful  desire,  by  the  grace  and  mercy  of  God,  to 
discharge  his  solemn  responsibility  as  "a  watchman 
3 


18 


over  the  House  of  Israel, feeling  at  the  same  time 
that  many  others,  in  the  Church,  would  discharge 
the  duty  far  more  efficiently,  the  author  must  request, 
at  least,  his  brethren  of  the  Church  in  his  own  dio- 
cese, to  accompany  him  in  the  examination  of  this 
widely  circulated  and  high-pretending  divinity. 

But  to  go  over  the  whole  body  of  divinity,  in  all  its 
members,  for  the  sake  of  estimating  the  character  of 
this,  were  an  endless  task.  We  must  select  some  great 
fundamental  principle  of  the  Gospel,  which,  viewed 
in  one  aspect,  makes  the  main  doctrinal  feature  of  the 
Protestant  orthodox  faith ;  and  viewed  in  an  opposite 
aspect,  makes  the  main  doctrinal  feature  of  Roman- 
ism ;  and  to  which,  as  it  is  held  by  the  two  opposite 
parties,  may  be  traced  the  chief  peculiarities  which 
rise  up  before  the  public  eye  and  distinguish  them 
respectively,  each  from  the  other.  Then  we  must 
inquire  to  which  of  the  two  contrasted  views  of  that 
main  principle,  the  essential  features  of  Oxford  Di- 
vinity are  most  conformed,  and  if  we  find  them  con- 
formed to  that  of  Rome,  and  opposed  to  that  of  the 
Church  of  England,  then  the  system  is  essential  Ro- 
manism, even  though  it  have  not  yet  put  forth  a  single 
branch  of  Romanism,  as  that  is  developed  in  its  Pur- 
gatory and  Image-worship,  and  Transubstantiation, 
&c.  But  if  we  shall  find,  moreover,  that  it  is  not  only 
thus  conformed  in  the  main  principle,  but  is  going  on 
to  shoot  out  more  and  more,  however  slowly  and  cau- 
tiously, into  just  the  same  growth  of  bud  and  branch; 
then  we  shall  be  the  more  confirmed  in  the  conviction, 
not  only  that  it  is  Romanism  in  essence,  but  that,  in 
proportion  as  the  times  will  allow,  and  room  shall  be 
given,  it  will  become  Romanism  in  full  manifestation. 


19 


Now  what  is  that  fundamental  question  which  will 
thus  serve  as  a  position  whence  we  may  command 
the  whole  field  of  enquiry  before  us?  We  need  go 
no  further  than  the  Judicious  Hooker  for  an  answer. 

That  grand  question,''  he  says,  "that  hangeth  in 
controversy  between  us  and  Rome  is  about  the  matter 
of  Justifying  righteousness.  We  disagree  about  the 
nature  and  essence  of  the  medicine  rvherehy  Christ 
cureth  our  disease;  about  the  manner  of  applying  it  ; 
about  the  number  and  the  power  of  means,  which  God 
requireth  in  us  for  the  effectual  applying  thereof  to 
our  soul's  comfort.  When  they  are  required  to  show 
what  the  righteousness  is  whereby  a  Christian  man 
is  justified,  they  answer  that  it  is  a  divine  spiritual 
quality;  w^hich  quality  received  into  the  soul,  doth 
first  make  it  to  be  one  of  them  who  are  born  of  God; 
and  secondly,  endue  it  with  power  to  bring  forth  such 
works  as  they  do  that  are  born  of  Him ;  even  as  the 
soul  of  man,  being  joined  to  his  body,  doth  first 
make  him  to  be  of  the  number  of  reasonable  crea- 
tures; and,  secondly,  enable  him  to  perform  the  natu- 
ral functions  which  are  proper  to  his  kind  :  that  it 
maketh  the  soul  amiable  and  crracious  in  the  sio^ht  of 
God,  in  regard  whereof  it  is  termed  Grace;  that  it 
purgeth,  purifieth,  and  washeth  out,  all  the  stains 
and  pollutions  of  sins;  that,  by  it,  through  the  merit 
of  Christ,  we  are  delivered,  as  from  sin,  so  from  eter- 
nal death  and  condemnation  the  reward  of  sin.  This 
Grace  they  will  have  to  be  applied  by  infusion;  to 
the  end  that,  as  the  body  is  warm  by  the  heat  which 
is  in  the  body,  so  the  soul  might  be  made  righteous 
by  inherent  Grace;  which  Grace  they  make  capable 
of  increase ;  as  the  body  may  be  more  warm,  so  the 


20 


soul  more  and  more  justified,  according  as  Grace 
should  be  augmented;  the  augmentation  whereof  is 
merited  by  good  works,  as  good  works  are  made 
meritorious  by  it.  Wherefore,  the  first  receipt  of 
Grace,  in  their  divinity,  is  the  first  Justification :  the 
increase  thereof,  the  second  Justification.  As  Grace 
may  be  increased  by  the  merit  of  good  works :  so  it 
may  be  diminished  by  the  demerit  of  sins  venial ;  it 
may  be  lost  by  mortal  sin.  Inasmuch,  therefore,  as 
it  is  needful,  in  the  one  case  to  repair,  in  the  other  to 
recover,  the  loss  w^hich  is  made,  the  infusion  of  Grace 
hath  her  sundry  aftermeals :  for  the  which  cause,  they 
make  many  ways  to  apply  the  infusion  of  Grace.  It 
is  applied  to  infants  through  Baptism,  without  either 
faith  or  works;  and,  in  them,  really  it  taketh  away 
original  sin,  and  the  punishment  due  unto  it:  it  is 
applied  to  infidels  and  wicked  men  in  the  first  Justi- 
fication, through  baptism,  without  w^orks,  yet  not 
without  faith ;  and  it  taketh  away  sins  both  actual 
and  original  together,  with  all  whatsoever  punish- 
ment, eternal  or  temporal,  thereby  deserved.  Unto 
such  as  have  attained  the  first  Justification,  that  is 
to  say,  this  first  receipt  of  Grace,  it  is  applied  farther 
by  good  works  to  the  increase  of  former  Grace :  which 
is  the  second  Justification.  If  they  work  more  and 
more,  Grace  doth  more  increase :  and  they  are  more 
and  more  justified.  To  such  as  diminish  it  by  venial 
sins,  it  is  applied  by  holy  water,  Ave  Marias,  cross- 
ings, papal  salutations,  and  such  like:  which  serve 
for  reparations  of  Grace  decayed.  To  such  as  have 
lost  it  through  mortal  sin,  it  is  applied  by  the  Sacra- 
ment (as  they  term  it)  of  Penance :  which  sacrament 
hath  force  to  confer  Grace  anew;  yet  in  such  sort, 


21 


that,  being  so  conferred,  it  hath  not  altogether  so 
much  power  as  at  the  first.  For  it  only  cleanseth 
out  the  stain  or  guilt  of  sin  committed :  and  changeth 
the  punishment  eternal,  into  a  temporal  satisfactory 
punishment  here,  if  time  do  serve,  if  not,  hereafter  to 
be  endured;  except  it  be  lightened  by  masses,  works 
of  charity,  pilgrimages,  fasts,  and  such  like;  or  else 
shortened,  by  pardon  by  term,  or  by  plenary  pardon 
quite  removed  and  taken  away.  This  is  the  mystery 
of  the  Man  of  Sin.  This  maze  the  Church  of  Rome 
doth  cause  her  followers  to  tready  when  they  ask  her 
the  way  to  Justif  cation.  Whether  they  speak  of  the 
first  or  second  Justification,  they  make  the  essence  of 
a  divine  quality  inherent,  they  make  it  righteousness 
which  is  in  us.  If  it  be  in  us,  then  it  is  ours ;  as  our 
souls  are  ours,  though  we  have  them  from  God,  and 
can  hold  them  no  longer  than  pleaseth  him ;  for,  if  he 
withdraw  the  breath  of  our  nostrils,  we  fall  to  dust. 
But  the  righteousness,  wherein  we  must  be  found, 
if  we  will  be  justified,  is  not  our  own.  Therefore  we 
cannot  be  justified  by  any  inherent  quality. — The 
Church  of  Rome,  in  teaching  Justification  by  inhe- 
rent Grace,  doth  pervert  the  truth  of  Christ :  and,  by 
the  hands  of  the  Apostles,  we  have  received  other- 
wise than  she  teacheth.  Now,  concerninof  the  Riorhte- 
ousness  of  Sanctification,  we  deny  it  not  to  be  inhe- 
rent: we  grant,  that,  unless  we  work,  we  have  it  not: 
only  we  distinguish  it,  as  a  thing  different  in  nature 
from  the  Righteousness  of  Justification.  By  the  one, 
we  are  interested  in  the  right  of  inheriting :  by  the 
other,  w^e  are  brought  to  the  actual  possession  of  eter- 
nal bliss.  And  so  the  end  of  both  is  everlasting  life."^ 


'  Hooker's  Disc,  of  Justif.  §  5,  6. 


22 


Now  here  we  have  a  regular  pedigree  of  the  most 
injurious  corruptions  of  the  Romish  Church,  and 
all  traced  to  the  parent  cause  in  her  doctrine  of  Justi- 
fication. All  together  make  up  ''the  mystery  of  the 
Man  of  sin^^ — 'Hhe  maze  which  the  Church  of  Rome 
doth  lead  her  follorvers  to  tread,  rvhen  they  ash  her  the 
way  to  Justification  — all  constitute  that building 
of  manifold  error  which  Hooker  believed  must  fall  "in 
the  presence  of  the  building  of  God,"  "  as  Dagon,  be- 
fore the  Ark."  But  the  corner  stone  on  which  that 
building  rests ;  the  clue  to  that  maze;  the  secret  of  that 
mystery,  is  the  Romish  doctrine  of  Justification  by 
Inherent  Righteousness — the  answer  she  gives  to 
the  question  of  a  sinner  enquiring  what  he  must  do 
to  be  saved,  instead  of  that  plain  answer  of  St.  Paul, 
"  Believe  on  the  Lord  Jesus  Christ  and  thou  shalt  he 
savedr  Embrace  the  answer  of  Rome,  and  you 
have  essential  Romanism;  carry  out  the  principle, 
and  you  will  have  developed  Romanism,  in  the  whole 
of  its  maze  and  mystery.  Embrace  the  answer  of 
St.  Paul,  and  you  strike  Romanism  to  the  heart;  so 
that,  whatever  its  ramifications,  they  must  all  die  and 
pass  away;  whatever  its  maze,  it  is  all  disentangled 
and  scattered.  It  is  the  Romish  doctrine  of  Justifica- 
tion that  gives  value  to  indulgences,  need  to  purgatory, 
use  to  the  sacrament  of  penance,  motive  to  the  invo- 
cation of  saints,  credence  to  the  existence  of  the  sa- 
cred treasury  of  supererogatory  merits ;  that  makes 
auricular  confession  tolerable,  and  all  the  vain  inven- 
tions of  meritorious  will-worship,  precious.  Next 
come  devices  for  the  defence  of  these,  and  hence  the 
Romish  doctrine  of  tradition  and  of  infallibility  and  of 
implicit  faith.  Such  precisely  was  the  view  of  the 
judicious  Hooker,  as  furnished  in  the  extract  above 


23 


given  ;  a  writer  whose  authority  will  not  be  denied, 
as  to  what  was  the  fundamental  question  in  the  days 
of  the  reformation  of  the  Church  of  England,  in  her 
controversy  with  Rome.  In  this  prominence  of  Jus- 
tification, there  was  a  perfect  agreement  among  the 
Protestant  Divines,  as  well  of  England,  as  of  the 
Continent.  It  was  in  precise  accordance  with  the 
view  of  Hooker,  that  Luther  spake  of  the  doctrine  of 
Justification  as  "  the  article  of  a  standing  or  a  falling 
Church  that  Calvin  maintained  that  ^'if  this  one 
head  rvere  yielded  safe  and  entire,  it  rvould  not  pay  the 
cost  to  make  any  great  quarrel  about  other  matters  in 
controversy  rvith  Rome;''^  that  Melancthon  said  he 
and  his  brethren  were  brought  into  danger  for  the 
only  reason  that  they  denied  the  Romish  doctrine  of 
Justification  f  that  divines  in  the  Council  of  Trent 
opposed  the  Protestant  doctrine  of  Justification  be- 
cause it  "  abolished  the  punishment  together  rvith  the 
guilt,  and  left  no  place  remaining  for  satisfaction,^^ 
that  is,  it  made  all  the  devices  of  sacramental  penance, 
propitiatory  masses,  yea,  the  w^hole  "  maze  and  mys- 
tery of  the  man  of  sin,"  unnecessary.  Such  was  the 
view  universally  taken  by  the  earlier  divines  of  the 
Church  of  England.  With  such  men  as  Usher,  Hall, 
Andrewes,  Beveridge,  as  well  as  a  host  before  them, 
the  Romish  Justification  was  always  a  main  and 
fundamental  question,  on  which  the  whole  building 
of  Romish  error  ultimately  rested  . 

In  this  w^ork  the  author  goes  back  to  the  essential 
test  of  the  Romanism  of  any  system  of  divinity.  Is 


«Bp.  Hall's  Works,  ix.  p.  44,  5.  2  Ep.  i.  120.  3  Paul's  Hist, 

Counc.  of  Trent,  p.  200. 


24 


Oxford  Divinity  conformed  essentialhj  to  the  doctrine 
of  Rome,  on  the  question  of  Justification  ;  or  to  the 
opposite  doctrine  of  the  standards  of  the  Church  of 
England,  and  of  her  daughter- Church  in  America? 
To  arrive  at  the  right  answer  to  this  question,  will 
be  the  object  of  the  following  pages. 

But  here  it  is  asked  how  can  we  suspect  such  men 
as  the  advocates  of  this  system,  men  of  a  reputation 
so  unimpeached,  and  under  such  solemn  vows  of 
conformity  to  the  doctrines  of  the  English  Church, 
of  a  design  to  bring  in  Romanism,  or  to  bring  over 
the  Church  of  England  to  that  of  Rome? 

It  is  answered  that  we  suspect  no  such  thing. 
That  they  consider  themselves  as  labouring  to  intro- 
duce what  theij  wall  call  Romanism ;  that  they  have 
any  desire  to  make  the  Church  of  England  subject 
to  that  of  Rome ;  or  to  make  her  similar,  in  all  those 
peculiar  features  which  most  strike  the  eye  and  ex- 
cite the  general  aversion,  and  some  of  which  their 
own  writings  have  opposed;  that  they  do  not  con- 
sider themselves  as  special  lovers  of  the  mother- 
Church,  and  working  directly  for  the  best  interests 
of  religion  therein,  we  by  no  means  assert.  It  is  this 
very  fact,  that  their  personal  reputation  is  so  unim- 
peachable, and  that  their  conviction  of  the  propriety 
of  what  they  are  doing  seems  so  sincere,  which,  if 
they  do  teach  serious  error,  must  make  their  teach- 
ing the  more  dangerous,  and  give  it  the  greater 
power  of  extension.  Men  are  often  half  persuaded 
already  of  a  doctrine,  when  its  advocate,  to  learning, 
adds  evident  sincerity  and  benevolence.  Soon  would 
it  do  away  our  apprehensions  of  much  evil  result 
from  any  error  in  the  writing  of  these  divines,  to  see 


25 


them  stand  disclosed  as  knowing  their  doctrines  to 
be  inconsistent  with  those  of  the  Church  of  which 
they  profess  to  be  devoted  sons,  and  promotive  of  a 
system  against  which  that  Church  so  earnestly  pro- 
tests. In  such  a  case,  we  might,  in  a  great  degree, 
confide  in  the  evil,  for  its  remedy;  in  the  criminal, 
for  his  halter. 

But  some  of  the  worst  corruptions  of  religion  have 
had  their  origin  with  its  best  and  sincerest  friends. 
Among  those  who  most  disturbed  the  Churches  of 
Rome  and  Carthage  in  the  days  of  Cornelius  and 
Cyprian,  were  Confessors,  with  maimed  and  man- 
gled bodies,  from  the  torture,  in  which  they  had 
borne  a  noble  testimony  to  their  Master.  What  is  now 
a  full-grown  idolatry  in  the  Church  of  Rome,  had 
its  beginnings  in  the  bosoms  of  men  ready  to  die  for 
Christ,  and  was  nursed  by  some  of  the  purest  piety 
of  the  early  Church.  The  ovum  of  saint-worship 
was  laid,  by  the  Serpent,  in  the  ashes  of  the  martyrs; 
and  in  the  assemblies  of  devout  men,  around  their 
tombs,  met  together  out  of  just  veneration  for  their 
holy  example  and  noble  death,  was  the  embryo 
cherished.  The  whole  history  of  the  Church  warns 
us  against  forgetting  that  very  good  and  sincere  men 
may  set  on  foot  great  errors — and  thus  inflict  an  in- 
jury of  which  worse  men  would  not  be  capable.^ 


•  Jackson  traces  the  idolatrous  worship  of  Romanism  to  "  the  making  such 
fair  garlands,  as  Antiquity  had  woven  for  holy  Saints  and  true  Martyrs,  into 
chains  for  every  dead  dog-'i  neck  which  had  brought  gain  to  their  Sanctuary." 
'*  The  choicest  respect  or  reverence,  (he  says)  which  had  been  manifested  towards 
the  best  of  God's  Saints  or  Martyrs,  was  afterwards  enjoined  as  a  perpetual 
honour  to  their  birth-days.  Rome-Christian  hath  been  of  this  kind  more  lavish 
that  Rome-Heathen.    In  process  of  time  it  became  matter  of  imputation  unto 

4 


26 


Again :  it  is  asked  whether  the  eminent  learning, 
united  to  the  religious  character  of  these  Divines,  is 
not  such  protection  against  serious  error  that  we 
may  feel  assured  they  have  not  fallen  into  doctrines  ap- 
proximating in  any  evil  or  dangerous  degree  to  Ro- 
manism ?  The  idea  has  w^eight  practically,  but  it  is 
only  necessary  to  ask  the  question,  to  answer  it.^ 
"Let  him  that  thinketh  he  standeth,  take  heed  lest 
he  fall."  "The  depths  of  Satan"  are  deeper  than 
any  man's  learning.  His  wiles  are  stronger  than 
any  man's  goodness.  His  great  enmity  is  against  the 
redemption  of  man  by  Jesus  Christ,  and  consequently 
against  the  true  way  of  Justification  through  his 
righteousness.  And  to  cut  off  the  supplies  of  the 
Church,  by  choking  up,  if  he  cannot  w^holly  cut  off, 
that  new  and  living  way  to  the  Father,  was  his  grand 
device  in  Romanism,  and  wdll  ever  be  among  all 
people.  No  human  learning  and  goodness  can  be 
trusted  for  security  against  his  "principalities  and 
powers."  "We  wrestle  not  with  flesh  and  blood." 
The  war  which  began  when  it  was  said  to  the  Ser- 
pent, "thou  shalt  bruise  his  heel,"  is  still  waged 
without  ceasing  against  that  "  Seed  of  the  Woman," 


some  religious  orders  that  they  had  not  so  many  canonized  Saints  as  their  oppo- 
sites  could  brag  of.  Thus  the  order  of  the  Carthusians  was  suspected  not  to 
be  celestial.  And  lest  any  part  of  heathenish  superstition  might  be  left  unpar- 
alleled by  like  practices  of  the  Romish  Hierarchy,  as  the  deification  of  Antinous 
was  countenanced  with  feigned  relations  of  a  new  star's  appearance,  &c. — so 
were  Revelations  pretended  in  the  Papacy  to  credit  their  sanctifications  which 
stood  in  need  of  some  divine  testimony  to  acquit  their  sanctity  from  suspicion." 
—  Works,  Vol.  1,  pp.  936,  7. 

1  In  Dr.  Pusey'i  Scriptural  Views  of  Holy  Baptism  we  are  warned  against 
the  "  delusive  criterion  "  of  allowing  ourselves  to  be  influenced  in  the  enquiry 
whether  any  doctrine  be  a  Scriptural  truth,  by  the  supposed  religious  character 
of  those  who  hold  or  deny  it. — p.  1 1 .  Am.  Ed. 


27 

''the  second  Man,"  "the  Lord  from  Heaven."  His 
mystical  body,  on  earth,  is  compassed  with  strata- 
gem which  often  eludes  the  most  careful  search. 
Many  a  learned,  many  a  zealous,  many  a  sincere 
man  has  been  unwittingly  harnessed  to  the  work  of 
that  "Ruler  of  the  darkness  of  this  world;"  who 
never  succeeded  in  constructing  such  an  Antichrist 
as  when  he  wrought  up  Romanism,  and  has  no  de- 
vice so  dear  as  that  of  sustaining  it,  in  all  its  integ- 
rity, and  of  reducing  the  whole  kingdom  of  Christ,  on 
earth,  to  that  dominion. 

But,  again,  it  is  asked,  how  can  the  writers  in 
question  be  charged  with  a  dangerous  tendency  to 
Romanism,  when  it  is  well  known  that  they  have  fre- 
quently expressed  themselves,  and  even  written  trea- 
tises directly  against  certain  conspicuous  features 
of  the  Roman  Church  ? 

That  these  divines  have  so  written,  we  have  no 
disposition  to  deny.  Whether  they  have  not  con- 
fined themselves,  in  their  arguments  against  what 
theij  call  Romanism,  to  a  very  meagre  selection  of 
topics;  expressly  excluding  what  our  Reformers  and 
ancient  divines  considered  to  be  the  great  cardinal 
matters  of  the  controversy ;  whether,  in  the  points 
embraced,  they  have  not  taken  ground  exceeding 
low  and  tame,  usmg  language  which  often  betrays 
a  disposition,  rather  to  apologize  for  the  Church  of 
Rome,  than  to  detect  her  heresies;  whether  they 
have  not  confined  themselves  to  such  a  selection  of 
the  weapons  of  argument,  especially  in  the  exclusion 
of  the  authority  of  Scripture,  and  the  substitution  of 
a  single  reliance  upon  that  of  tradition,  in  disprov- 
ing certain  errors  of  Rome,  so  as  in  reality  to  dis- 


28 


honour  and  betray  the  very  cause  of  which  they  are 
the  professed  defenders ;  whether  they  be  not  pre- 
cisely such  advocates  of  Protestanism,  as  the  Church 
of  Rome,  in  her  steady  effort  to  plant  again  the 
standard  of  the  Vatican  upon  the  walls  of  Lambeth, 
would  select,  had  she  the  choosing  of  her  adversa- 
ries ;  whether,  by  the  very  nature  and  mode  of  their 
restrained  and  tame  and  apologetic  controversy,  so 
wholly  unlike  the  vigorous  onsets  of  England's  Re- 
formers and  greatest  divines,  they  are  not  really  do- 
ing Rome's  wwk,  in  England,  far  more  advantage- 
ously, for  the  present  Times,  than  any  of  her  own 
professed  sons  could  do  it,  and  that  simply  because 
they  consider  themselves  consistent  clergymen  of 
the  Church  of  England,  and  because  many  cry  out 
loudly  against  the  uncharitableness  of  supposing 
they  are  not ;  whether,  if  they  were  citizens  of  a 
country  in  which  Romanism  was  the  established 
faith,  they  would  not  find  themselves  bound  by  their 
present  principles,  and  but  little  forbidden  by  their 
present  sympathies,  to  fall  in  submissively,  with  the 
ways,  and  bow  to  the  authority  of,  the  Romish 
Church,  it  would  be  premature,  in  this  place,  to 
consider. 

Let  it,  however,  for  the  present,  be  granted  that 
these  divines  have  written  well  and  faithfully  against 
such  features  of  Romanism,  as  the  Papal  Suprema- 
cy ;  the  schismatic  position  of  the  Church  of  Rome 
within  the  Dioceses  of  the  Church  of  England ;  the 
denial  of  the  cup  to  the  laity,  &c.  &c.,  so  as  to  prove 
that  so  far  as  these  and  similar  matters  constitute 
Romanism,  they  desire  none  of  its  ways.  But  surely 
it  is  not  uncommon  for  persons  to  be  opposing  the 


29 


overt  manifestations  of  deadly  disorder,  while  unwari- 
ly, but  constantly,  cherishing  its  vital  principle.  The 
seat  of  ruinous  evil  may  as  easily  be  mistaken  in 
the  mystical  body  of  "the  Man  of  Sin,"  as  in  the 
natural  body  of  any  of  its  individual  members. — It 
is  indeed  a  singular  mode  of  argument  to  contend 
that  because  certain  writers  oppose  some  things  in 
the  Church  of  Rome,  they  may  not  be  charged  with 
the  vital  essence  of  Romanism,  and  with  maintain- 
ing those  very  principles  which,  above  all  others, 
have  made  her  almost  Apostate,  and  us  entirely  Pro- 
testants. The  fact  that  these  divines  have  written 
with  learning  and  sincerity  against  some  of  the 
more  offensive  and  inconvenient  developments  of 
Popery,  (for  the  claim  of  Papal  Supremacy  would 
certainly  be  quite  inconvenient  to  the  clergy  of  Eng- 
land, if  allowed,)  puts  them  in  the  precise  position 
from  which,  if  thev  be  wrono^  in  the  one  radical  mat- 
ter  of  justification,  the  publication  of  their  doctrines, 
on  that,  will  operate  the  more  covertly  and  danger- 
ously upon  the  Protestant  community  around  them. 
Men  will  be  the  less  awake  to  the  maintenance  of 
the  more  abstract  and  impalpable  error,  because  they 
are  witnesses  to  the  resistance  presented  to  the  more 
superficial,  but  impressive.  Let  a  school  of  divines 
appear  among  us  who,  under  the  profession  of  Pro- 
testants, instead  of  appearing  as  advocates  of  only 
some  of  the  more  interior  and  least  familiar,  but 
head-sources,  of  Roman  corruptions,  shall  come  out 
also  full  handed  with  arguments  for  the  supremacy, 
and  transubstantiation,  and  divers  other  matters  of 
equal  note.  We  shall  little  fear  their  influence.  Ten 
years  of  open  attack  around  the  walls  of  Troy,  ef- 


30 


fected  nothing.  But  one  day  of  delusion  amongst 
the  wardens  of  her  gates  ;  the  not  examining  what 
lay  concealed  under  an  apparent  act  of  religion 
betrayed  the  city.  So  it  is,  says  Usher,  "  They  who 
kept  continual  watch  and  ward  against  the  more  di- 
rect introduction  of  evil,  might  sleep  while  the  seed 
of  an  iniquity,  cloaked  with  the  name  of  piety,  were 
a  sowing ;  yea,  peradventure  might,  at  unawares 
themselves,  have  some  hand  in  bringing  in  their 
Trojan  horse,  commended  thus  unto  them  under 
the  name  of  religion  and  semblance  of  devotion."^ 

"  We  do  not  hold,  (says  the  same  admirable  Pre- 
late) that  Rome  was  built  in  aday ;  or  that  the  great 
dung-hill  of  errors,  which  we  now  see  in  it,  was 
raised  in  an  age;"  Neither  do  we  hold  that  Rome 
could  be  rebuilt  in  any  country  where  she  has  been 
cast  down,  in  a  generation ;  nor  that  the  re-construc- 
tion must  necessarily  be  called  Ro7ne,  and  have  all  the 
forms  and  outward  and  visible  signs  of  that  inward 
and  spiritual  departure  from  grace  which  is  usually 
denominated  Popery.  Should  we  conceive  of  the 
grand  enemy,  actually  employing  a  band  of  men, 
concealed  under  profession  of  Protestants  (and  we 
may  do  so  for  the  sake  of  illustration,  without  offence) 
to  lay  open  a  secret  road  for  Popery,  into  the  very 
citadel  of  the  Protestantism  of  England,  we  could 
readily  understand  that  they  would  select  the  most 
gradual  means,  as  the  most  effectual;  the  most  noise- 
less and  unseen,  as  the  most  ensnaring ;  that  they 
would  seem  to  be  great  opposers  of  Romanism,  in 
some  points,  while  insinuating  it  in  others;  would 


'  Answer  to  a  Jesuit,  p.  4. 


31 

break  ground  at  a  distance,  where  they  would  be 
least  feared  and  remarked ;  get  their  position  fixed 
in  peace,  ''while  men  slept;"  then  cautiously  com- 
mence approaches,  gradually  familiarizing  the  watch- 
ers upon  the  walls  with  the  sound  of  their  working, 
and  never  putting  forth  a  new  approach,  till  the  no- 
velty of  the  former  was  forgotten.  We  can  readily 
conceive  that  the  w^eapon  of  such  a  siege  would  not 
be  as  the  Roman  Catapult,  hurling,  in  open  day,  its 
bolts  and  fiery  darts.  Some  Christian  Archimedes, 
with  the  bright  mirror  of  the  word,  would  soon  burn 
up  the  engine  and  put  the  workers  to  confusion. 
But  the  weapon  w^ould  be  the  pick  of  the  sapper,  dig- 
ging at  the  base ;  and  the  foundation  selected  would 
be  that  of  the  bastion,  w^hich,  while  in  reality  the 
key  of  the  fortress,  is  least  known  in  that  importance 
to  the  multitude,  and  therefore  the  least  watched; 
and  their  object  w^ould  be,  like  that  of  the  gun-pow- 
der plot,  under  the  Senate-House  and  Throne,  to 
subjugate  the  whole,  in  the  ruin  of  the  head;  and 
could  they  only  persuade  some  honoured  and  trusted 
men  of  the  city,  under  the  sincere  supposition,  on 
their  part,  that  they  were  only  searching  after  hid 
treasures  of  Antiquity ,  or  endeavouring  to  effect  some 
useful  restoration  in  the  old  walls  of  a  venerable  mon- 
ument of  ancient  prowess,  to  do  the  digging  for  them^ 
till  they  themselves  could  work  unseen  in  the  mine, 
it  would  indeed  be  great  gain.  By  and  by,  it  would 
be  seen  that  a  portion  of  the  wall  was  fallen — then 
another,  but  each  with  such  interval,  that  all  lookers- 
on  had  grown  familiar  with  the  sight  of  the  first  di- 
lapidation, before  the  second  was  permitted.  By  and 
by,  that  bastion  is  in  ruins,  and  the  city  at  the  mercy 


32 


of  the  enemy,  but  all  has  gone  on  so  gradually  and 
imperceptibly  that  it  excites  but  little  apprehension. 
Now  because  there  is  little  change  to  the  eye;  no 
change  of  accustomed  names;  no  overt  invasion  of 
old  attachments  and  usages ;  no  hoisting  of  the  flag 
of  the  Pope,  men  may  be  saying,  where  is  the  fear  of 
his  coming — for  all  things  continue  as  they  were 
from  the  beginning.  But,  like  Samson  asleep,  their 
strength  is  departed  and  the  Philistine  is  upon  them. 
That  strong  bastion  of  our  Reformed  Church  is  Jus- 
tification hj  Faith;  erected  "upon  the  foundation  of 
the  Apostles  and  Prophets — Jesus  Christ  himself 
being  the  chief-corner  stone."  That  gone,  the  tem- 
ple is  taken,  the  ark  is  in  captivity;  "  from  the  daugh- 
ter of  Zion,  all  her  beauty  is  departed."  What 
then  if  there  never  grow  up  over  the  desolate 
courts  of  the  Lord's  House,  the  thorns  and  thistles, 
and  all  those  rank  growths,  whose  names  are  in  the 
Breviary  of  abominations  indigenous  to  Romanism  ? 
Satan  is  well  content.  The  land  is  desolate.  The 
work  is  done.  A  greater  display  of  ruin,  might  make 
it  only  the  less  permanent.^ 

To  some  readers  it  may  occur  that,  in  the  above 
remarks,  the  writer  has  made  insinuations  disrespect- 
ful to  the  honesty  and  sincerity  of  the  divines  at  Ox- 
ford. But  not  so.  They  are  in  no  wise  intended, 
but  as  they  may  be  unconsciously  instrumental  in  the 
process  described.  But  so  is  the  writer  impressed 
with  the  Scripture-warnings  as  to  the  enmity  of  Sa- 
tan against  the  Lord  our  Redeemer,  who  being  per- 
sonally out  of  reach,  in  heaven,  can  only  be  assailed 


•  Jimiaso  Articulo  Justi^cationis,  simul  amissa  est  tota  doctriua  Christiana. 
— Luther. 


33 


through  his  mystical  body — the  Church,  on  earth. 
So  fully  does  he  believe  that  in  these  last  times,  Sa- 
tan has  come  down,  having  great  wrath,  because  he 
knoweth  he  hath  but  a  short  time,  ;^  so  does  he  feel 
the  importance  of  that  Litany,  "  That  it  may  please 
thee  to  heat  down  Satan  under  our  feet  f  and  so  do 
the  signs  of  the  times  seem  to  indicate  that  the 
Church  of  England,  as  it  has  been  always  the  strong 
hold  of  the  truth,  is  now  the  grand  object  of  a  spe- 
cial effort  in  these  last  days  of  "  the  Ruler  of  the  dark- 
ness of  this  world;"  and  so  deeply  is  the  writer  im- 
pressed, by  the  history  of  all  ages,  that  it  is  the  good 
men  and  strong — the  Peters  of  the  Church,  whom 
Satan  intensely  desires  to  have  that  he  may  sift  them 
as  wheat — and  that  out  of  these  he  may  yet  succeed, 
as  he  did  with  Peter,  and  has  often  since  succeeded, 
in  causing  some  to  fall  into  his  snare,  and  drag  in  his 
traces,  and  make  a  stand  against  the  truth,  while  they 
know  not  what  they  do;  that  the  writer  could  not 
adventure  on  this  subject,  without  expressing  these 
habitual  and  solemn  thoughts  of  his  mind ;  however 
liable  he  might  make  himself  to  the  false  imputation 
of  an  unkind,  unbrotherly,  disrespectful  meaning 
towards  the  authors  particularly  referred  to  in  his 
pages.  It  is  nothing  more,  however,  than  these  au- 
thors not  unfrequently  say,  in  substance,  of  those, 
their  brethren  in  the  Church  of  England,  whom  they 
are  fond  of  distinguishing  as  Ultra-Protestants,  and 
to  whom  they  unequivocally  attribute,  not  only  essen- 
tial Rationalism,  but  a  direct  tendency  to  Socinianism, 
and  ultimate  Infidelity.    Now  since  such  features  of 


5, 


'Rev.  xii.  12. 


34 


the  system  of  these  unhappy  Ultra-Protestants,  must, 
in  the  judgment  of  their  accusers,  be  ''not  of  the  light, 
but  of  the  darkness,''  and  consequently  of  ''the  Ruler 
of  the  darkness  of  this  rvorld,^'  however  unconscious 
the  instruments,  the  present  writer  may  be  excused 
in  expressing  a  similar  opinion  of  the  secret  instiga- 
tion of  what  he  considers  to  be  Romanism  at  Oxford. 

Mr.  Newman  expresses  precisely  the  writer's  mind 
when  he  says  that  ''Satan  ever  acts  on  a  system, 
various,  manifold  and  intricate,  with  parts  and  instru- 
ments of  different  qualities,  som.e  almost  purely  evil, 
others  so  unexceptionable,  that  in  themselves,  and  de- 
tached from  the  end  to  rvhich  all  is  subservient,  they 
are  really  ^Angels  of  Light,''  and  may  be  found  so  to 
be  at  the  last  dayP^ 


i Newman  on  the  Prophetical  Office  of  the  Church,  p.  102.  "Taking  it  for 
granted,"  says  a  writer  now  of  great  note  at  Oxford,  "  that  the  Devil  had  jas 
great  a  longing  since  Christ  triumphed  over  him,  as  he  had  before,  to  work  the 
bane  of  men's  souls  throughout  Europe — it  were  a  brutish  simplicity  to  think 
he  could  not,  and  a  preposterous  charity  to  think  he  would  not,  minister  his  re- 
ceipts in  a  cunninger  fashion,  since  the  promulgation  of  the  Gospel,  than  he  did 
before ;  although  the  poison  be  still  the  same.  To  eat  figs,  or  other  more  cor- 
dial food,  with  the  infusion  of  subtle  and  deadly  poison,  exempts  not  men's  bo- 
dies from  danger.  Much  less  can  speculative  orthodoxal  opinions  of  the  God- 
head free  men's  souls  from  the  poison  of  idolatrous  practices  wherewith  (in  the 
Romish  Church,)  they  are  mingled."  "  Were  rats-bane  as  simply  and  grossly 
ministered  to  men,  as  it  is  to  rats,  few  would  take  harm  by  it," — JacksorCs 
Work*,  b,  V,  c,  xxii. 


CHAPTER  II. 


STATEMENTS  PREPARATORY  TO  THE  RIGHT  ESTIMATION  OF  THE 
OXFORD  DOCTRINE  OF  JUSTIFICATION. 

Professions  of  Oxford  Divines  concerning  the  conformity  of  their  doctrine  with 
that  of  the  Church  of  England — Their  account  of  Ultra-Protestantism — The 
identity  of  their  system  with  that  of  Alexander  Knox — The  condemnation  of 
the  latter,  as  Komish  and  dangerous,  by  certain  eminent  divines,  of  diverse 
schools  in  the  Church  of  England,  before  its  development,  at  Oxford,  had 
excited  any  special  notice. 

Before  proceeding  any  further,  it  is  proper  to  state 
that  the  Divinity  which  we  propose  to  examine,  is 
loudly  claimed  by  its  advocates  to  be  the  middle  path, 
the  Via  Media,  of  the  Church  of  England,  ''distinct 
from  the  by-ways  of  Ultra-Protestantism  on  one  side, 
and  neither  verging  towards,  nor  losing  itself  in, 
Romanism  on  the  other." ^  The  formularies  of  the 
Church  of  England,  and  the  writings  of  her  standard 
Divines  are  often  and  confidently  appealed  to  as  ex- 
hibiting the  precise  doctrines  of  the  system.  Now 
it  is  the  simple  question  how  far  these  pretensions 
are  true,  which  we  propose  to  institute.  But  in  order 
to  estimate  this  Via  Media  aright,  the  first  thing  is  to 
get  a  view  of  the  opposing  sides  between  which  it 
professes  to  pass.  Of  the  one  side,  viz.  of  Romanism, 
we  are  to  speak  particularly  hereafter.  Of  the  other 
— Ultra.  Protestantism,  a  something  which  occurs 
with  singular  frequency  in  the  works  of  these  writers, 


'  Pusey's  Letter,  p.  14. 


36 


what  shall  we  say?  What  is  Ultra  Protestantism? 
We  have  seen  no  definition.  But  according  to  the 
use  of  Dr.  Pusej,  and  others,  the  name  seems  to  be 
applied  to  whatever  is  in  religion,  or  relating  to  it, 
negatively,  or  positively,  for,  or  against,  only  except- 
ing Romanism  and  Oxfordism;  embracing  all  varie- 
ties of  cause  and  effect,  doctrine  and  inference ;  from 
the  case  of  those  clergy  of  the  Church  of  England, 
who  are,  "  in  the  main,  orthodox  and  sound,  in  spite  of 
the  natural  tendency  of  their  principles,"  through 
Lutheranism  and  Calvinism,  and  every  grade  of  un- 
romish  dissent  and  heterodoxy,  down  to  what  is 
considered  the  result  of  the  common  tendency,  an  entire 
Rationalism,  and  Socinianism,  ut  nec  pes,  nec  caput 
uni  reddatur  formoe.  One  would  suppose  that  a  coast 
so  undefined  would  afford  but  little  guidance  in  keep- 
ing the  middle  way,  except  as  when  mariners,  under 
fear  of  hidden  shoals  and  currents,  on  an  unseen  shore^ 
keep  as  far  away  as  possible. 

Some  specimens  will  help  us  to  judge  how  far  the 
Via  Media  is  really  a  middle  waij. 

Dr.  Pusey  describes  a  large  portion^'  of  the  clergy 
of  the  Church  of  England  as  holding  "that  Justifi- 
cation is  not  the  gift  of  God  through  his  sacraments, 
but  the  result  of  a  certain  frame  of  mind,  of  a  going 
forth  of  themselves  and  resting  themselves  upon  their 
Saviour;  that  this  is  the  act  whereby  they  think 
themselves  to  have  been  justified;  and  so  as  another 
would  revert  to  his  baptism  and  his  engraffing  into 
Christ,  and  his  thus  being  in  Christ,  so  do  they  this  act 
whereby  they  were  justified."  "  They  sever  Justifi- 
cation from  Baptism,  and  make  it  consist  in  the  act 
of  reliance  upon  the  merits  of  Christ  only ;  sin,  ac- 


37 

cording  to  them,  is  forgiven,  at  once^  upon  each  re- 
newal of  this  act :  and  in  that,  they  thus  virtually 
substitute  this  act  for  Baptism ;  a  man  has  no  more  to 
do  with  his  past  sins,  than  he  has  with  those  remitted 
by  baptism according  to  them  "  when  men  have  been 
once  brought,  in  repentance  to  renounce  their  sins,  and 
seek  reconciliation  through  the  free  mercy  of  Christ — 
then  their  sins  are  done  away,  they  are  covered,  they  can 
appear  no  more ;  the  hand-writing  is  blotted  out.  This 
**  apprehension  of  Christ's  merits  is  to  them  a  full  re- 
mission of  sins,  completely  effacing  them."  "  To  re- 
vert to  past  sins  is  to  doubt  of  Christ's  mercy;  to  bear 
a  painful  recollection  of  it  is  to  be  under  the  bondage 
of  the  law ;  to  seek  to  efface  it  by  repentance  is  weak- 
ness of  faith;  to  do  acts  of  mercy  or  self-denial,  or 
self-abasement,  or  to  fast  with  reference  to  it,  is  to  in- 
terfere with  'the  freeness  and  fulness  of  the  Gospel:' 
to  insist  upon  them  *  is  to  place  repentance  in  stead 
of  Christ.'"^ 

It  is  impossible  not  to  see  in  this  strange  caricature, 
which  really  applies,  in  all  respects,  to  no  class  of 
the  clergy  of  England,  that  ''the  large  portion''  in- 
tended is  that  w^hich  is  best  known  in  this  country 
by  such  names  as  Robinson,  Scott,  Venn,  the  two 
Milners,  Simeon ;  of  whose  mode  of  exhibiting  the 
way  of  salvation,  the  w^ritings  of  such  living  divines 
as  the  present  Bishop  Wilson,  of  Calcutta,  the  two 
Bishops  Sumner,  one  of  Winchester,  the  other  of 
Chester,  the  Rev.  G.  S.  Faber,  &c.  are  fair  examples. 
True  indeed  the  views  of  this  most  honourable  and 
useful  body  of  the  English  Clergy  are  very  singu- 


1  Pusey's  Letter,  pp.  74,  8,  54,  5. 


38 


larly  overdrawn ;  one  can  hardly  recognize  them  un- 
der the  strained  and  warped  features  for  which  they 
are  made  to  be  accountable ;  but  without  doubt,  the 
Ultra  Protestantism  referred  to  in  the  above  extracts, 
is  intended  to  be  understood  as  being  displayed  in  the 
general  mode  which  appears  in  that  class  of  English 
divines,  of  representing  the  nature  and  essence  of  the 
medicine  wherehij  Christ  cureth  our  disease,  the  manner 
of  applying  it,  and  the  number  andporver  of  the  means  ^ 
Of  such  views,  does  Dr.  Pusey  write  as  follows :  ''This 
abuse  of  the  doctrine  of  justification  by  faith  sears  men's 
consciences  now,  as  much  as  the  indulgences  of  the  Ro- 
mish si/stem  did  before.  It  used  to  be  said  that  '  the 
Komish  was  an  easy  religion  to  die  in,'  but  even  the 
Romish,  in  its  corruptions,  scarcely  offered  terms  so 
easy,  at  all  events  made  not  a  boast  of  the  easiness  of 
its  terms."  Then  follows  an  evident  preference  of 
the  Romish  system,  on  the  ground  that  if  it  have  only 
^^the  stale  dregs  of  the  system  of  the  ancient  Church," 
it  has  the  dregs — something  of  the  bitterness  of  the 
ancient  medicine;'^  it  still  teaches  men  *'to  make  sa- 
crifices for  the  good  of  their  souls  to  accuse  and 
condemn  themselves,  that  so  they  might  find  mercy^^ 
through  Christ — to  be  '■'punished  in  this  rvorld,  that 
their  souls  might  be  saved  in  the  day  of  the  Lord^  We 
are  given  distinctly  to  understand  that  the  modern 
system  of  divinity  of  "a  large  portion  "  of  the  English 
Clergy,  is  worse  than  even  these  stale  dregs  of  the 
medicine  of  the  ancient  Church;  because  it  ''stifles 
continually  the  strong  emotions  of  terror  and  amaze- 
ment which  God  has  wrought  upon  the  soul,  and  by 
by  an  artificial  wrought-up  peace,  checks  the  deep 
and  searching  agony,  whereby  God,  as  in  a  furnace, 


39 


purifies  the  whole  man,  by  the  spirit  of  judgment, 
and  the  Spirit  of  burning."  It  is  a  spurious  system, 
misapplying  the  promises  of  the  Gospel,  usurping  the 
privileges  of  baptism  which  it  has  not  to  confer,  giv- 
ing peace  which  it  has  not  to  bestow,  and  going  coun- 
ter to  the  whole  tenor  of  Scripture,  that  every  man 
shall  be  judged  according  to  his  works. 

The  same  singularly  extravagant  and  most  painful 
strain  of  condemnation  is  found  every  where  in  Mr. 
Newman's  Lectures  on  Justification.  The  following 
is  a  specimen.  He  calls  the  righteousness  of  Christ 
imputed  to  us  for  Justification,  as  held  by  the  "large 
portion"  of  the  English  Clergy,  above  referred  to, 
''an  unreal  righteousness  and  a  real  corruptions^ 
"bringing  us  into  bondage  to  shadorus^'' — '''another 
gospeiy  ^'Away  then  (he  says)  with  this  modern^  this 
private^  this  arUtranj,  this  tyranical  system,  which 
promising  liberty  conspires  against  it ;  which  abol- 
ishes sacraments,  to  introduce  dead  ordinances;  and 
for  the  real  participation  of  Christ,  and  justification 
through  his  Spirit,  would  at  the  very  marriage  feast, 
feed  us  on  shells  and  husks,  who  hunger  and  thirst 
after  righteousness."^ 

It  is  not  the  purpose  here  to  say  a  word,  in  argu- 
ment, concerning  all  these  wonderful  and  most  me- 
lancholy exhibitions  of  morbid  mind  and  spiritual  dis- 
cernment. Whoever  has  paid  any  serious  attention 
to  the  writings  of  the  Clergy,  thus  professedly  dis- 
played, will  need  no  help  in  estimating  the  justness 


'  Pusey's  Letter,  pp.  56 — 59. 

2  Lectures  on  Justif.  p.  61.  Extremes  meet.  Socinnus  calls  the  same  doc- 
trine, feeda,  execranda,  pernitiosa,  detestanda. 


40 


of  the  condemnation.  But  where  there  is  no  need  of 
argument,  there  may  be  propriety  in  assertion ;  and 
sometimes  there  is  a  solemn  duty  in  assertion,  if  only 
for  the  purpose  of  bearing  our  solemn  testimony, 
whatever  it  may  be  worth,  to  some  precious,  but  de- 
spised and  reviled  portion  of  the  truth  as  it  is  in 
Jesus.  Such  testimony,  the  present  writer  feels  con- 
strained to  give,  in  this  place,  after  such  an  afflicting 
reprobation  of  what  he  most  solemnly  believes  to  be 
nothing  else  than  "  the  glorious  Gospel  of  the  blessed 
God,"  our  Saviour.  Denying  entirely  the  justice  of 
the  draft  of  doctrine  laid  to  the  charge  of  the  class  of 
divines  professedly  described ;  but  perceiving  just 
enough  of  truth  therein  to  mark  distinctly  who  com- 
pose "  the  large  portion"  of  Clergy  whom  our  Oxford 
divines  have  thus  represented  as  teaching  for  the  way 
of  salvation,  ''another  gospel'^ — 3.  spurious  system — 
^^an  unreal  righteousness  and  a  real  corruption^'' — 
worse  even  than  the  system  of  indulgences  in  the 
Church  of  Rome  ;  the  author  of  these  pages  does  ear- 
nestly hope  that  his  name  may  be  counted  worthy  to 
take  part  in  their  condemnation.  If  the  way  here  call- 
ed another  gospel,  even  that  of  Justification  through 
the  obedience  and  death  of  Christ,  accounted  unto  us 
for  righteousness,  through  the  instrumental  agency 
of  a  living  faith,  be  not  the  only  hope  of  the  sinner,  then 
he,  for  one,  has  no  hope.  He  has  learned  of  no  other 
"  anchor  of  the  soul  sure  and  stedfast,  which  enter eth  to 
that  rvithin  the  veiV  He  does  hope  he  may  be  ever 
identified  with  that  divinity,  that  way  of  preaching 
Christ  Jesus  the  Lord,  which  instead  of  a  ''reserve'' 
in  making  known  the  precious  ^doctrine  of  Atone- 
ment, instead  of  treating  salvation  hy  grace,  through 


41 


faith,  as  "  a  great  secret,''  and  keeping  the  secret  out  of 
the  sight  of  the  ungodly,  for  fear  of  "  an  indelicate  ex- 
posure of  the  sacred  mystery,''  as  these  writers  urge/ 
shall  lift  up  the  voice  to  the  perishing  and  penitent, 
like  the  Master  and  Lord,  when  to  the  great  multi- 
tude, on  the  last  day  of  the  feast,  he  cried,  If  any 
man  thirst  let  him  come  unto  me  and  drink  a  mode 
of  preaching  Christ,  that  shall  ever  delight  to  pro- 
claim to  all  people  a  full,  perfect  and  ready  salvation 
to  the  vilest  sinner,  whenever,  in  sickness  or  health, 
he  turns  unto  God,  truly  repenting  and  believing  in 
Jesus — a  salvation  which  justifies  perfectly,  and  im- 
mediately, on  the  act  of  a  living  faith,  and  which 
sanctifies  j9er/ec^/y,  hut  progressively,  as  the  necessary 
fruit  of  the  same  faith ;  a  salvation  so  perfect  and 
free,  that,  in  the  words  of  Hooker,  "although  in  our- 
selves, we  be  altogether  sinful  and  unrighteous,  yet 
even  the  man  which  is  impious  in  himself,  full  of  in- 
iquity, full  of  sin,  him  being  found  in  Christ,  through 
faith,  and  having  his  sins  remitted  through  repent- 
ance, him  God  beholdeth  with  a  gracious  eye,  put- 
teth  away  his  sin  by  not  imputing  it,  taketh  quite 
away  the  punishment  due  thereto  by  pardoning  it, 
and  accepteth  him  in  Jesus  Christ,  as  perfectly  righte- 
ous as  if  he  had  fulfilled  all  that  is  commanded  him  in 
the  Law.  Let  it  be  counted  folly  or  frenzy,  or  fury, 
whatsoever,  it  is  our  comfort  and  our  wisdom."^  So 
testifies  our  admirable  Hooker — most  surely  an  Ultra 
Protestant,  in  the  matter  of  Justification,  and  branded, 
as  others,  with  the  hot  denunciation  of  these  Oxford 
divines.    One  can  scarcely  open  the  works  of  such 


1  See  No.  80  of  Tracts  for  the  Times. 

6 


2  Discourse  of  Justif.  §  6. 


42 


writers  as  Bishops  Beveridge,  Usher,  Reynolds, 
Andre wes,  Hopkins,  Hooker,  and  of  the  English 
Reformers  in  general,  without  meeting  with  the  very 
ideas,  and  often  the  very  words,  which  have  been 
made  the  subject  of  such  tremendous  condemnation. 

Having-  now  obtained  some  oreneral  idea  of  the  di- 
vinity  in  question,  by  a  brief  view  of  one  of  the  oppo- 
site sides  which  it  professes  to  avoid,  and  of  the  ex- 
treme antipathy  with  which  its  advocates  recoil  from 
that  one ;  we  are  ready  to  proceed  to  a  more  direct  in- 
vestigation. 

Our  single  object  will  Ije  to  enquire  7vlietlier  this 
divinity  does  preserve,  as  it  professes,  the  middle  way 
bctwee7i  the  extremes  of  Protestantism,  on  the  one  side, 
and  of  Romanism  on  the  other — the  way  of  the  Protest- 
ant Church  of  England  as  indicated  in  her  standards 
of  doctrine,  and  in  the  writings  of  her  standard  di- 
vines ;  whether  it  does  not  substantially  renounce  the 
doctrines  of  the  Church  of  England,  as  thus  expressed 
and  expounded,  in  regard  to  thervay  of  a  sinner^ s  justi- 
fication before  God,  and  its  connected  truths ;  and  sub- 
stantially identify  itself  with  those  very  doctrines  of  the 
Church  of  Rome,  on  these  points,  against  which  the 
Church  of  England,  in  common  with  all  the  Protest- 
ant Churches  of  Europe,  did  in  the  days  of  the  Refor- 
mation most  solemnly  protest. 

But  how  great  would  be  the  advantage,  in  favour 
of  a  correct  conclusion,  could  this  cjuestion  be  pur- 
sued entirely  aloof  from  the  various  temptations  to 
bias,  arising  out  of  the  present  wide-spread  feeling  in 
reference  to  Oxford  Divinity.  This  cannot  be.  B  ut 
then,  as  the  next  thing,  how  great  would  be  our  aid 
could  we  obtain  the  deliberate  judgment  of  learned 


43 


and  good  men  upon  the  same  divinity,  expressed  be- 
fore it  came  to  he  identified  with  Oxford  Tracts;  be- 
fore the  peculiar  views  of  l\ir.  Newman  on  Justifica- 
tion, and  which  are  now  avow^ed  by  Dr.  Pusey,  as 
those  of  the  Oxford  school,  had  excited  any  general 
attention,  or  draw^n  any  party  lines.  But  the  advan- 
tage of  the  opinions  of  learned  and  good  men,  in  such 
circumstances  w^ould  be  greatly  enhanced,  should 
they  come  from  those  two  schools  of  doctrine  in  the 
Church  of  England,  which  would  be  the  most  likely 
to  differ  on  such  a  subject;  so  that  while  on  one  side 
there  would  be  all  ability,  candour  and  fairness,  on 
the  other  there  would  be  also  a  special  inclination  to 
see  matters  in  a  favourable  light.  Then  if  the  opin- 
ions of  such  men  should  be  essentially  the  same,  the 
probability  that  their  judgment  was  right  would  be 
exceedingly  strong. 

The  opinions  of  such  men,  in  such  circumstances, 
and  thus  concurring,  can  be  produced. 

The  reader  is,  perhaps,  acquainted  v/ith  the  name 
and  character  of  the  late  Alexander  Knox,  a  member 
of  the  United  Church  of  England  and  Ireland,  a  gen- 
tleman of  secluded  life  and  high  excellence  of  char- 
acter ;  an  author  of  meditative  habits  of  mind,  and 
of  extensive  research.  He  was  known,  while  living, 
to  be  possessed  of  some  peculiar  views  on  several 
subjects  of  divinity,  especially  those  of  Providence 
and  Justification.  His  "  Remains,"  of  which  the 
first  volumes  appeared  in  1834,  excited  no  little  at- 
tention. The  notions  put  forth  therein,  on  the  doc- 
trine of  Justification,  "  would  appear  to  have  come 
across  the  path  of  our  Protestant  Divinity  (says  the 
British  Critic)  with  a  disturbing  influence  similar  to 


44 


thai  of  a  comet  upon  the  orbit  of  our  globe. Many 
greatly  feared  their  influence.  Others  apprehended 
little  from  the  "  meditations  of  a  recluse  and  solitary 
thinker  whose  life  exhibited  the  pattern  of  every  Chris- 
tian grace." 

But  whatever  were  the  peculiarities  of  Mr.  Knox, 
and  though  they  were  conceived  and  written  long 
before  those  of  Oxford,  on  Justification,  had  excited 
any  attention ;  it  is  distinctly  intimated  in  a  late  num- 
ber of  the  British  Critic,  under  its  now  well-known, 
though  recent,  character,  as  an  organ  of  the  new  di- 
vinity, that  between  the  views  of  Mr.  Knox  and  those 
of  its  own  present  school,  there  is  so  great  an  identity 
that  the  former  was  but  ^'an  instance  in  rudiment "  of 
what  the  latter  has  since  developed.  Let  us  cite  the 
words.  *'  His  rvritings  (says  the  Reviewer)  are  no 
slight  evidence  of  the  intellectual  and  moral  movement 
under  consideration.^''  Again:  '^He  is  an  instance  in 
rudimen  t  of  those  great  restorations  rvhich  he  foresarv 
in  development.  He  shares  with  the  eminent  writers  of 
the  day  in  the  worh  of  advancing  what  he  anticipated.''^^ 

Now  let  us  see  what  were  those  anticipations  of 
Mr.  Knox  which  are  thus  spoken  of,  as  being  now 
advancing  to  development  at  Oxford.  "  Of  Mr.  Knox's 
more  conspicuous  peculiarities,  none  (says  the  Critic) 
are  more  remarkable  than  those  on  the  subject  of  Jus- 
tification hy  faith,  and  his  speculations  relative  to  di- 
vine Providence."  Now  the  peculiarities  concerning 
the  doctrine  of  Providence  certainly  are  not  referred 
to  as  rudiments  of  the  present  developments  at  Ox- 
ford.   It  follows  that  those  concerning  Justification 


'  British  Critic  No.  .56,  pp.  40,  41,  42. 


45 


are.  What  then  were  the  peculiar  views— what  the 
anticipations  of  Mr.  Knox  on  this  subject,  by  which 
he  came  into  such  acknowledged  identity  with  the 
"restorations"  at  Oxford? 

Mr.  Knox  has  declared  that  "tzo  writer  on  this  earth 
is  more  misunderstood  or  misrepresented  than  St. 
PaiiF^  upon  the  subject  of  Justification.^  "I greatly 
suspect,  (he  writes)  that  the  time  is  not  very  distant 
when  even  Theological  Creeds  will  be  brought  to  a 
Philosophical  Test,  and  be  discarded,  should  they 
not  stand  the  trial.  At  such  a  season,  I  have  little 
hope  for  those  who  are  only  acquainted  with  St.  Paul, 
through  the  interpreting  medium  of  Luther  or  Calvin, 
Dr.  Owen  or  Mr.  Romaine.  Confident  I  am,  they 
will  awake  and  wonder  how  they  could  have  dreamed 
of  man's  chief  hope  resting  on  any  ground  but  that 
MORAL  ONE  upou  which  our  omniscient  Lord  himself 
has  placed  it — 'Blessed  are  the  pure  i7i  heart,'  S^c;  or 
of  a  state  of  favour  with  God  existing,  for  one  mo- 
ment, independently  of  moral  qualification.  They 
will,  I  doubt  not,  at  length,  discover  this  strange  de- 
fect in  the  present  favourite  system."^  This  then  is 
the  sum  of  Mr.  Knox's  anticipations  on  this  head ; 
viz. — 1st.  "The  application  of  a  philosophical  test  to 
the  Scripture  doctrine  of  Justification,  and  the  dis- 
carding of  whatever  abides  not  that  fire. — 2d.  The 
passing  away,  as  a  dream,  of  the  doctrine  of  Justifi- 
cation by  the  extrinsic  righteousness  of  Christ,  account- 
ed to  us  hij  faith,  only,  and  the  substitution  of  a  Justi- 
fication resting  exclusively  upon  the  moral  basis  of 
an  inherent  personal  righteousness."" 


•  Remains,  vol.  1,  p.  284,  285,        2  lb.  p.  315. 


46 


These  then  are  the  views  which  Mr.  Knox  ''shares 
with  the  eminent  writers  of  the  dmj  in  advancing,'" 
which  constitute  a  pdrt  of  ''these  great  restorations 
which  he  foresaw  in  development" — and  of  which  he 
himself  was  "an  instance  in  rudiinentP  So  then  by 
the  volunteer-profession  of  the  Oxford  school  itself, 
as  declared  by  its  present  organ,  the  British  Critic, 
the  theology  of  Mr.  Knox  on  the  subject  of  Justifica- 
tion was  essentially  their  own.  Further  proof  of  this 
identity  will  appear  by  and  by.  At  present  we  have 
enough  to  warrant  the  introduction  of  some  account 
of  Mr.  Knox's  doctrine,  w^ith  a  view  to  the  opinions 
upon  it  which  w^e  have  promised. 

His  system  is  thus  expressed  in  his  own  words : 
"In  St.  Paul's  sense,  to  he  justified  is  not  simply,  to 
be  accounted  righteous ;  but  also  and  in  the  first  in- 
stance, to  he  made  righteous  hy  the  implantation  of  a 
radical  principle  of  righteousness. "  ^  ' '  What  I  am  im- 
pressed with  is:  that  our  being  reckoned  righteous 
before  God,  always  and  essentially  implies  a  sub- 
stance of  righteousness  previously  implanted  in  us ; 
and  that  our  Reputative  Justification  is  the  strict  and 
inseparahle  result  of  this  previous  efficient  Moral  Jus- 
tification. I  mean :  that  the  reckoning  us  righteous 
indispensahly  presupposes  an  inward  reality  of  righte- 
ousness, ON  WHICH  THIS  RECKONING  IS  FOUNDED."  This 

Justified  State,  Mr.  Knox  says,  is  "simply  and  essen- 
tially a  state  of  Spiritual  Vitality" — that  is:  to  be 
Justified  is  nothing  more,  nor  less,  than  to  be  spiritual- 
ly alive — a  state  which,  he  says,  "when  duly  cultivated, 
thrives  and  advances,"  "  when  neglected,  withers  and 


»  Treatise  on  Redemption  and  Salvation  in  Remains,  vol.  H,  p.  60. 


47 


dies.^'^  Ill  common  words,  to  be  Justified  is  just  to 
be  in  a  state  of  sanctification,  "simply  and  essentially." 
They  who  are  in  this  Justification,  he  says,  ''derive 
all  their  comfort  not  from  abstract  reliance  on  rvliat 
Christ  did  for  tliem  in  the  days  of  his  flesh,  but  from 
consciousness  of  his  effectual  grace  rvithi7i  them.''^^ 
"  How^  completely  this  system  (says  Mr.  Knox,  with 
serious  truth)  sweeps  away  the  merely  forensic  sys- 
tem, leaving  it  neither  root  nor  branch,  I  need  not  say 
more  to  illustrate."  Mr.  Knox  anticipates  the  day 
when  men  "will  aw^ake  and  wonder  how  they  could 
have  dreamed  of  Man's  chief  hope  resting  on  any 
ground  but  that  Moral  one — Blessed  are  the  pure  in 
heart,''^  c^c.  He  assures  us  that  never,  till  the  Refor- 
mation, was  the  theory  in  vogue,  "of  a  doctrinal  faith, 
giving  ease  to  the  conicience,  through  reliance  on  rvhat 
Christ  has  done  to  satisfy  divine  Justice.^^ 

The  sum  of  the  doctrine  is  this : — We  are  justified 
not  by  what  Christ  has  done  for  us  externally,  w^hen 
in  the  days  of  his  flesh  he  offered  himself  a  sacrifice 
for  our  sins,  which  would  be  to  be  justified  by  a  righte- 
ousness extrinsic  and  accounted  to  us ;  but  by  what 
Christ  works  in  us  internally,  by  his  Spirit,  a  right- 
eousness infused,  instead  of  accounted,  internal  and  in- 
herent, personal  xighXeousne^^,  an  effectual,  inwrought 
grace  on  rvhich  our  Justification  is  exclusively  founded. 
This  inherent  righteousness  horvever  is  not  acquired 
except  through  faith  and  the  merits  of  Christ. 

Now  there  are  few  living  writers  in  the  present 
day  whose  opinion  upon  the  question  how  far  this 


I  Treatise  on  Justif.  in  Rem.  vol.  1.  p.  306  &  311.  2  treatise  on  Bap- 

tism in  Rem.  vol.  p.  516,  517.  ^^Qm.  vol.  1,  p.  315. 


48 


doctrine  of  Mr.  Knox  partakes  essentially  of  Popery, 
would  command  more  attention  in  the  Church  of  this 
country,  than  the  Rev.  George  Stanley  Faber,  whose 
well-known  learning  is  accompanied  by  an  unques- 
tioned and  single  love  of  the  truth,  and  a  spirit  of 
moderation  in  all  things.  From  his  able  pen  we 
have  been  favoured  with  a  lucid  and  learned  volume 
on  "the  Primitive  Doctrine  of  Justification;"  a  work 
highly  to  be  commended  for  its  clear  and  vigorous 
setting  forth  of  the  doctrine  of  the  Scriptures,  and  of 
the  Church,  on  that  head.  Its  main  object  is  to  ex- 
hibit the  divinity  of  Mr.  Knox  in  comparison  with 
that  of  Rome,  of  the  Church  of  England,  and  of  the 
Scriptures.  In  that  w^ork,  Mr.  Faber  writes  as  fol- 
lows :  ''so  far  as  I  can  perceive,  there  is  no  differ- 
ence BETWEEN  THE  DOCTRINE  ADVOCATED  BY  HIM  (Mr. 

Knox)  and  the  doctrine  of  the  Council  of  Trent 
— that  Man  is  justified  before  God  not  hy  the  extrinsic 
righteousness  of  Christy  hut  hy  anintrinsic  righteousness 
which  really  as  much  belongs  to  him,  as  his  soul  or  his 
body  belongs  to  him^  being  inherently  infused  into  him 
hy  God^  through  faith  in  our  Lord  Jesus  Christ. 

"Mr.  Knox  and  the  Tridentine  Fathers  and  the 
Schoolmen,  with  whatever  subtle  distinctions  and  ex- 
planations, make  the  Procuring  Cause  of  Justification 
to  be  our  own  infused  and  therefore  inherent  and  in- 
ternal righteousness. 

"The  Church  of  England,  on  the  contrary,  and  all 
the  other  Reformed  Churches,  make  the  Procuring 
Cause  to  be  the  extrinsic  righteousness  of  Christ  ap- 
prehended and  appropriated  hy  the  instrumental  hand 
of  Faith. 

"  With  respect  to  the  necessity  of  holiness,  both  in 


49 


thought,  and  in  word  and  in  work,  as  an  indispensa- 
ble QUALIFICATION  for  the  kingdom  of  heaven,  all  par- 
ties are  agreed. 

"But  when  they  come  to  treat  of  the  place,  which 
in  the  economy  of  Justification,  is  occupied  by  Holi- 
ness, they  differ  considerably,  and  indeed  essen- 
tially ;  for  this  in  truth  is  the  hinge  upon  which 
the  controversy  turns." ^  "I  think  it  is  indisputa- 
ble both  that  the  Church  of  Rome  teaches  the  doc- 
trine of  Justification  hy  the  merit  of  our  own  inherent 
righteousness  ;  and  that  Mr.  Knox,  without  any  per- 
ceptible difference,  has  adopted  the  very  same  system. 
In  other  words,  the  Church  of  Rome  and  Mr.  Knox 
have  alike  confounded  together,  the  Righteousness  of 
Justification^  which  is  perfect,  hut  not  inherent,  and 
the  righteousness  of  Sanctification,  rvhich  is  inherent, 
hut  not  perfect.  Whence,  overlooking  the  theologi- 
cal fact  that  the  one  is  consequential  to,  and  distinct 
from,  the  other,  they  have,  in  truth,  made  the  two 
altogether  identical ;  and  the  natural,  or  rather  the 
inevitable  result  has  been,  that  the  office  of  the  for- 
mer they  have  ascribed  to  the  latter."  "It  is  pain- 
ful to  say  that  I  cannot  but  deem  the  views  of  Mr. 
Knox,  in  regard  to  the  doctrine  of  Justification,  highly 

DANGEROUS,  AND  ESSENTIALLY  UNSCRIPTURAL."^ 

We  have  now  exhibited  the  opinion  of  a  writer 
who,  however  learned  and  excellent  and  moderate, 
and  of  good  report  for  fairness  and  candour,  is  not  of 
that  class  of  divines  in  the  Church  of  England,  with 
which  (the  Oxford  school  excluded)  the  peculiarities 


2  Prim.  Doc.  of  Juslif. 


50 


of  Mr.  Knox  would  be  likely  to  find  the  nearest  sym- 
pathy.    The  work  of  Mr.  Faber  was  published  in 

1837.  The  Lectures  of  Mr.  Newman  on  Justification 
were  not  then  before  the  public,  and  his  peculiar  views 
on  that  subject  had  excited  but  little  attention. 

The  class  of  English  theologians  most  likely  to 
sympathise  with  Air.  Knox  from  a  general  similarity 
of  tastes,  and  aversions,  and  modes  of  viewing  mat- 
ters in  the  Church,  is  that  which  was  represented  by 
the  British  Critic,  till  such  time  as  that  Review, 
having  changed  hands,  was  transformed  into  a  de- 
cided advocate  of  those  very  peculiarities  of  Oxford- 
ism,  of  which  Mr.  Knox  was  ^'the  rudiment."  In 
several  numbers  of  that  work,  in  the  years  1835  and 

1838,  we  have  reviews  at  large  of  Mr.  Knox's  Re- 
mains. From  no  quarter  could  a  more  favourable 
judgment  of  that  writer  have  been  expected.  It  is 
the  very  source  from  which  we  should  desire  an  opi- 
nion for  comparison  with  that  of  Mr.  Faber.  The 
Critic  writes  as  follows :  Closely  connected  with 
Mr.  Knox's  speculations  on  the  ways  of  God  in  justi- 
fying the  believer,  was  his  mode  of  contemplating 
the  one  great  Sacrifice  once  offered  for  the  redemp- 
tion of  the  human  race.  According  to  the  notions 
usually  entertained  by  Protestant  divines,  the  cross  of 
Christ  is  the  grand  and  central  object  in  their  system 
of  theologij.  Thus  it  is  we  believe,  for  the  most  part, 
with  those  rvho  pi^ofess  the  truth  for  which  our  martyr 
Bishops  poured  out  their  souls  unto  death.  But  this, 
it  must  be  acknowledged,  7vas  not  precisely  the  view 
of  redemption  which  presented  itself  to  the  meditations 
of  Alexander  Knox,  The  cross  was  not  the  cen- 
tral OBJECT  OF  HIS  DIVINITY.    It  held  a  somewhat 


51 


remote  and  subordinate  position.  His  chief  reliance 
was  7iot  so  much  on  what  Christ  had,  once  for  all, 
effected  for  the  whole  human  race,  as  upon  that  which 
Christ  stands  pledged  to  accomplish  within  the  heart 
of  every  true  believer.  The  hlood  of  sprinkling  is 
supposed  to  have  done  little  more  than  to  satisfy  him 
that  the  destroyer  had  once  been  averted  from  his 
dwelling;  and  to  have  given  him  no  distinct  assur- 
ance that  a  preservative  and  healing  power  was  con- 
tinually present  with  him."  The  Reviewer  sup- 
poses himself  asking  Mr.  Knox  such  questions  as 
the  following:  ^'Has  the  remission  of  sins  passed 
away  with  the  waters  of  baptism  ?  Is  it  no  more 
than  a  mere  transitory  absolution?  Is  every  lapse 
and  failure,  in  the  subsequent  life  of  the  Christian, 
to  be  engraven  on  the  rock?  Has  the  Saviour's  blood 
no  healing  or  absolving  virtue  for  them  who  may 
still  appear  to  be  more  or  less  afflicted  with  the  taint 
of  our  original  distemper?"  To  these  questions 
the  Reviewer  says — and  coming  from  such  a  source, 
in  reference  to  the  consequence  of  such  views,  we 
w^ould  mark  what  he  says  with  special  emphasis : 
"Were  we  to  answer  according  to  the  spirit  of  Mr. 
Knox's  theology,  we  do  not  see  how  we  could  do 
otherwise,  than  answer  them  in  a  manner  which 
might  send  despair  into  many  a  contrite  and  broken 
spirit,  and  lead  to  the  apprehension  that  all  but  a 
Tery  minute  and  insignificant  remnant  of  mankind 
were  indeed  left  without  a  saviour."  In  agree- 
ment with  Mr.  Faber,  the  Critic  says,  On  the  whole 
matter  he  does  seem  to  us  somewhat  unwarrantably  to 
identify  the  remission  of  sin,  with  deliverance  from  the 
bondage  {the  inherent  corruption)  of  sin.    He  affirms, 


52 


or,  at  least  he  plainly  and  pointedly  intimates,  that 
they  are  one  and  the  same  thing.  The  whole  tenor 
of  his  speculations  seems  to  imply  a  denial  of  the 
Christian's  right  to  Jiy  to  the  cross,  when  troubled  with 
the  wnscience  of  sin.  According  to  him  the  blood  of 
Christ  has,  once  for  all,  given  iis  access  to  the  Father. 
Having  done  this,  its  propitiatory  virtue  passes  away. 
We  have  nothing  more  to  do  with  it,  than  as  we  find 
the  office  of  the  Sanctifier,  which  it  has  purchased 
for  us,  realized  in  our  hearts,  &c.  Now  this  we 
CONFESS,  (continues  the  Critic,)  does  appear  to  us 
TO  be  somewhat  fearful  sound  of  doctrine.  It 
nullifies  at  once  the  dying  words  of  Hooker,  which 
are  constantly  in  the  thoughts  of  every  humble 
Christian,  '  Lord  I  plead  not  mine  own  righteous- 
ness, but  the  forgiveness  of  my  unrighteousness  for 
the  sake  of  Him  who  came  to  purchase  a  pardon  for 
penitent  sinners.'  It  almost  deprives  the  word  par- 
don  of  any  meaning,  except  in  its  application  to  those 
who  are  taking  their  first  step  from  death  to  life.  In 
short,  it  does  appear  to  us,  to  have  been  conceived 
in  strange  forgetfulness  of  the  office  and  character  of 
Him  who  will  neither  crush  the  hrolcen  reed,  nor  tread 
out  the  smoking  flax''^  Again,  in  another  number  of 
the  Critic,  Mr.  Knox  professed  himself  utterly  un- 
able to  imagine  that  the  Deity  would  ever  confer 
upon  us  a  title  to  which  there  was  nothing  actually 
corresponding  in  ourselves — declare  any  one  to  be 
righteous,  or  account  him  to  be  righteous,  or  deal 
with  him  as  righteous,  otherwise  than  with  reference 
to  some  moral  quality  inherent  in  that  individuaV^ 


'  Review  of  the  Remains  o!  Alexander  Knox.—British  Critic  for  July  1838. 


53 


After  all  this  we  are  not  surprized  that  the  Re- 
viewer is  prepared  to  avow  a  conclusion  so  similar  to 
that  of  Mr.  Faber,  as  the  following,  viz.  that  the 
above  difficulty  ''drove  Mr.  Knox  into  a  theory 

V^hich,  IT  CANNOT  BE  DENIED,  APPROXIMATES  VERY 
CLOSELY  TO  THE  EXPLODED  THEOLOGY  OF  ROME." 

But,  adds  the  Reviewer,  ''the  approximation  did 
not  much  discompose  him.  His  greatest  embarass- 
ment  arose  from  the  manifesthj  imyutative  or  forensic 
language  of  certain  of  our  formularies.  But  he  extri- 
cated himself  from  the  objection,  by  affirming  that 
God  PRONOUNCES  US  to  he  righteous ^  simi^ly  because 
He  has  made  us  so.''^ 

Now  from  the  concurrent  judgments  of  two  wri- 
ters, so  diverse  as  to  their  respective  schools,  and  each 
so  prominent,  as  Mr.  Faber  and  the  recent  editor  of 
the  British  Critic,  the  reader  may  see  what  is  Ro- 
manism, as  to  this  main  doctrine  of  salvation  and 
great  point  of  the  English  Reformation;  what  it  is 
for  a  distinguished  member  of  a  Protestant  Church 
to  be  identical  with  Romanism,  or  to  approximate 
very  nearly  thereto,  in  his  most  important  published 
opinions ;  how  it  is  that  a  mai),  very  eminent  for  read- 
ing and  thought,  of  very  pure  motive,  serious  spirit, 
and  high  elevation  of  character,  as  Mr.  Knox  cer- 
tainly was,  may  be  "beguiled  by  philosophy"  (so 
called)  or  something  else,  into  a  singular  departure 
from  the  simplicity  of  the  Scriptures,  and  from  the 
plainest  declarations  of  his  Church,  into  a  singular 
abandonment  of  the  very  life-vein  of  the  blessed  sys- 
tem of  redemption,  and  a  distinct  adoption  of  that  by 


»  British  Critic,  No.  Ixvii.  p.  89. 


54 

which  the  whole  gigantic  system  of  anti-christian 
error,  in  the  Church  of  Rome,  has  always  lived  and 
had  its  being ;  that  very  thing,  in  which,  says 
Hooker,  that  Church  differs  from  ours  in  the  nature 
and  essence,  and  manner  and  means  of  applying  the 
medicine  wherehy  Christ  cureth  our  disease  ;  and  last- 
ly, how  it  is,  that  a  writer  may  he  and  may  do  all 
this,  and  yet  be,  as  Mr.  Knox  doubtless  was,  an 
opposer  of  Rome  in  several  of  those  particulars  in 
which  her  doctrines  are  usually  considered  the  most 
offensive. 

Having  now  seen  the  character  of  Mr.  Knox's 
doctrines  and  anticipations,  w^e  recur  to  the  claim 
put  forth  by  the  school  at  Oxford,  to  the  connection 
between  him  and  them,  his  views  and  their  views ; 
his  rudiment  and  their  development ;  his  anticipa- 
tions and  their  fulfilment ;  his  hopes  of  restorations, 
and  the  concurrence  of  his  writings  with  their  writ- 
ings in  the  bringing  of  them  about;  and  we  ask, 
what  inference  is  to  be  drawn  ?  What  else  can  be 
inferred  than  that  the  doctrine  of  Justification  in  the 
Oxford  School,  is  precisely  that  which,  in  the  judg- 
ment of  Mr.  Faber,  is  identical  rvith  that  of  Rome, 
''highly  dangerous  and  essentially  imscripturaly"  and 
in  the  judgment  of  the  British  Critic,  under  its  for- 
mer management,  is  "a  fearful  sound  of  doctrine 
^^approximates  very  closely  to  the  exploded  theology 
of  Rome,"  a  form  of  doctrine  which,  in  the  words  of 
the  Critic,  does  away  with  almost  the  whole  sub- 
stance of  pardon,  except  in  the  initial  step  of  a  Chris- 
tian ;  removes  the  cross  of  Christ  from  its  central  po- 
sition in  the  system  of  Christian  verity;  sends  de- 
spair into  many  a  contrite  spirit;  deprives  all  but  a 


55 


precious  few  of  the  consolations  of  a  Saviour;  nulli- 
fies the  only  refuge  of  the  dying  Hooker ;  a  doctrine 
conceived  in  strange  forgetfulness  of  the  office  and 
character  of  the  blessed  Redeemer."  Alas !  what 
would  such  men  as  Beveridge  and  Usher  and  Hall 
and  Andre wes  and  Hooker  and  Cranmer,  who  were 
never  awakened  from  that  ''dream"  of  a  hope 
based  exdusivehj  upon  the  perfect  righteousness  of 
Christ,  imputed,  through  faith,  till  they  awoke  in  the 
white  raiment  of  a  personal  righteousness,  made  per- 
fect, in  heaven ;  what  would  they  say  to  such  restora- 
tions ?  And  yet  have  we  not  reason  to  believe  from 
what  we  have  now  seen,  so  far  as  the  opinions  of  the 
writers,  who  have  been  quoted,  are  to  be  relied  on,  that 
such  will  appear  on  further  investigation  to  be  the 
precise  nature  and  the  awful  consequences  of  the  re- 
storations which  Oxford  divinity  is  aiming  at,  in  the 
Protestantism  of  the  Church  of  England  ? 

Old  English  Churches,  erected  in  times  of  domi- 
nant Romanism,  and  for  the  superstitious  purposes 
of  old  Romish  worship,  but  long  since  reformed, 
have  sometimes  presented  examples  of  similar  resto- 
rations. Under  the  process  of  repair,  when  some 
later  erection  has  been  removed,  there  has  sometimes 
been  suddenly  revealed,  to  the  great  delight  of  the 
antiquary,  an  ancient ''rooJ-Zo/i? " — the  old  ''cham- 
ber of  imagery"  and  conservatory  of  idols,  the  sym- 
bol of  "the  mystery  of  the  man  of  sin,"  "  a7i  instance 
in  rudiment''  of  ''the  exploded  theologij  of  Rome''^ 


1  Of  the  rood-lofts  of  the  old  English  Churches,  prior  to  the  Reformation, 
some  extended  along  the  whole  width  of  the  nave  and  aisles;  smaller  ones  ex- 
tended merely  across  the  chancel-arch  and  over  the  screen,  and  were  used  for 


56 


From  similar  restorations  in  doctrine,  it  behoves  the 
whole  Church  most  earnestly  to  pray  "Good  Lord 
deliver  us^ 


the  purpose  of  setting  up  the  rood  with  its  attendant  images.  The  present 
organ-lofts  of  the  cathedrals  were  once  the  rood-lofts.  Where  in  many  small 
churches,  there  was  no  loft  or  gallery  for  such  purposes,  a  beam  extended  across 
the  chancel-arch,  to  which  the  rood  and  other  images  were  affixed. 


CHAPTER  HI. 


THE    DOCTRINE  OF  OXFORD   DIVINITY  AS  TO  THE  RIGHTEOUSNESS 
OF  JUSTIFICATION,  EXHIBITED. 

To  set  forth  the  precise  doctrine  of  Oxford  Divinity,  as  to  the  way  of  Justifica- 
tion, the  object  of  this  chapter. — The  main  question  of  Hooker,  as  to  the  Ro- 
mish doctrine,  adopted  here — The  great  point  of  enquiry  stated — The  Scrip- 
tural use  of  the  word  Justification — Two  kinds  of  righteousness,  asserted  by 
Hooker,  Beveridge,  Andrewes — Only  one  by  Oxfordism — This  opens  the  door 
to  the  divinity  of  Oxford,  as  well  as  of  Rome — That  one  righteousness,  made 
identical  with  Sanctification — What  is  meant  in  this  divinity  by  Imputation, 
Accounted,  &c. — Extended  proof  that  it  makes  Sanctification  the  same  as 
Justification — The  position  in  which  it  puts  the  cross  of  Christ — The  us©  it 
makes  of  the  merits  and  passion  of  Christ — Its  effect  upon  the  consolations 
of  the  believer — Singular  effort  to  escape  from  being  identified  with  Roman- 
ism, by  denying  what  was  before  asserted  as  to  Sanctification  and  Justification 
being  essentially  one — The  same  in  Mr.  Knox — This  doctrine  shown  in 
Osiander — Concluding  observations. 

In  the  last  chapter,  the  acknowledged  ''rudiment^'  of 
Oxford  divinity,  as  exhibited  in  the  writings  of  Alex- 
ander Knox,  was  shown  to  have  been  pronounced  by 
tw^o  eminent  writers  of  high  authority  in  their  respec- 
tive schools,  to  be  higJiIy  dangerous,  and  "  a  very  near 
approximatio7i "  to,  if  not  essentially  identical  with, 
Romanism.  The  chief  importance  of  the  opinions 
thus  adduced,  independently  of  the  standing  of  their 
authors,  arises  from  the  consideration  that  they  are 
derived  from  those  two  classifications  of  the  clergy 
of  the  Church  of  England,  whose  diversities  of  opin- 
ion in  other  matters  are  just  such  as  should  make 
their  concurrence,  on  this  point,  the  more  impres- 
sive. They  w^ere  published,  moreover,  at  a  time 
8 


58 


when  the  peculiarities  of  Oxford  Divinity,  on  the 
subject  of  Justification,  had  excited  but  little  atten- 
tion, and  consequently,  when  they  were  wholly  free 
from  all  suspicion  of  such  party-bias,  as  the  present 
excitement,  in  reference  to  those  peculiarities,  may 
be  supposed  to  produce.  From  the  concurrence  of 
such  opinions,  in  the  one  point  of  attributing  to  the 
^^Rudimenf^  a  decided  character  of  Romanism,  as  to 
some  of  the  most  vital  parts  and  applications  of  Gos- 
pel truths,  we  may  surely  enter  upon  our  further  in- 
vestigations of  the  ''Developments^^  of  Oxfordism,  with 
a  strong  presumptive  reason  to  anticipate  that,  if  Ro- 
manism was  apparent  in  the  germ,  much  more  will 
it  be  seen  in  the  half-grown  tree. 

We  now  address  ourselves  to  the  work  of  setting 
forth  the  precise  doctrine  of  Oxfordism,  as  to  Justifi- 
cation before  God. 

The  manner  in  which  the  Judicious  Hooker  com- 
mences the  same  work  with  Romanism  will  answer 
as  well  in  the  present  case. 

He  begins  with  a  statement  of  the  precise  points 
of  agreement  and  disagreement  between  the  doctrine 
of  the  Church  of  Rome  and  that  of  the  Church  of 
England. 

"  Wherein  do  we  disagree  ?  YJe  disagree  about 
the  nature  and  essence  of  the  medicine  rvherehj  Christ 
cureth  our  disease;  about  the  manner  of  applying  it; 
about  the  number  and  porver  of  means  rvhich  God  re- 
quireth  in  us  for  the  effectual  applying  thereof  to  our 
souls^  comfort 

These  assuredly  are  most  grave  matters  of  disa- 


>  Hooker's  Discourse  on  Justific.  §  4,  5. 


59 


greement.  But  they  are  precisely  those  on  which 
we  charge  the  divinity  under  consideration  with 
being  essentially  opposed  to  the  doctrine  of  the 
Church  of  England,  and  identically  Romish. 

The  present  chapter  will  be  occupied  with  an  ex- 
hibition of  what  this  system  teaches  as  to  the  na- 
ture AND  ESSENCE  OF  THE  MEDICINE  WHEREBY  ChRIST 
CURETH  OUR  DISEASE." 

Now  Justification,  according  to  our  eleventh  Arti- 
cle, is  the  being  ''accounted  righteous  before  God''' 
Hence  it  presupposes  some  righteousness,  as  its^essen- 
tial  basis.  The  nature  and  essence  of  the  medi- 
cine," is  simply  the  nature  and  essence  of  that  righte- 
ousness. Hence  the  great  question  has  always  been, 
as  Hooker  gives  it :  "  What  is  the  righteousness  where- 
by a  Christian  man  is  justified?  or  as  Mr.  Newman, 
in  the  name  of  Oxford  divinity,  states  it,  ''rvhat  is 
that  which  constitutes  a  man  righteous  in  God's  sight?'' ^ 
or,  as  the  learned  Chemnitz,  representing  the  Refor- 
mers in  their  controversy  with  the  Divines  of  the 
Council  of  Trent,  states  it :  What  is  that  which  we 
are  to  interpose  between  the  anger  of  God,  and  our  sins, 
so  that  on  account  thereof  we  may  be  absolved  from 
the  sentence  of  condemnation,  received  into  tlie  favour 
of  God,  adopted  as  sons,  and  accepted  to  everlasting 
life.''' 

It  will  materially  assist  in  the  development  of  the 
answer,  given,  in  Oxford  divinity,  to  this  fundamen- 
tal question,  if  we  first  occupy  a  few  moments  in 
considering  the  Scriptural  use  of  the  word  Justifica- 
tion, as  bearing  upon  the  nature  of  the  righteousness 
by  which  we  must  be  justified.    The  following,  from 


>  Lectures  on  Justification,  p.  144, 


^Eiamen.  Dec.  Cone.  Trid.  p.  144, 


60 


the  late  Charge  of  the  Author,  on  Justification,  will 
answer  the  purpose. 

The  Justification  of  a  sinner  must  be  in  one  of  two 
ways.  It  must  be  either  by  a  personal  change  in  a 
man's  moral  nature,  or  by  a  relative  change  in  his 
state,  as  regards  the  sentence  of  the  law  of  God.  The 
former  justification  is  opposed  to  unholiness ;  the  lat- 
ter, to  condemnation ;  the  one  takes  away  the  in- 
dwelling of  moral  pollution;  the  other,  imputation 
of  judicial  guilt.  If  we  understand  Justification,  in 
the  first  sense,  as  expressing  the  making  a  man  righte- 
ous, '^hy  an  infusion  of  righteousness,'^  as  Romanism 
expresses  it,  we  make  it  identical  with  Sanctif  cation, 
and  therefore,  it  is  as  gradual  as  the  progress  of  per- 
sonal holiness,  and  never  complete  till  we  are  per- 
fected in  heaven.  But  how  will  that  sense  appear  in 
such  a  passage  as  that  wherein  it  is  said  :  "  He  that 
justifieth  the  wicked  and  he  that  condemneth  the 
just,  even  they  both  are  an  abomination  to  the  Lord." 
Not  to  speak  of  the  evident  opposition  in  this  passage 
between  the  words  justifj  and  condemn,  implying  in 
both  judicial  and  not  a  moral  change ;  how  could  it 
be  an  abomination  to  the  Lord  to  justify  the  wicked, 
by  making  him  personally  holy,  by  an  infusion  of 
personal  righteousness.  But  if  w^e  take  Justification 
in  the  latter  sense,  as  indicating  a  relative  change,  it 
is  then  a  term  of  law,  understood  judicially,  and  ex- 
presses the  act  of  God,  in  his  character  of  Judge,  de- 
ciding the  case  of  one  accused  before  him,  and  instead 
of  condemning,  acquitting  him ;  instead  of  holding 
him  guilty,  accounting  him  righteous,  so  that  he  be- 
comes the  man  of  whom  David  speaks — the  happy 
man  ''unto  whom  the  Lord  imputeth  no  sin." 

In  relation  to  the  former  sense,  there  is  not  a  place 


61 


in  Scripture  wherein  the  word  Justify,  in  any  of  its 
forms,  is  used,  in  reference  to  remission  of  sins,  that 
can  be  so  interpreted.  As  to  the  latter,  the  judicial 
sense,  there  are  passages,  very  many,  in  which  it  can 
with  no  appearance  of  reason,  be  understood  in  any 
other/  This  sense  is  specially  manifest  where  Jus- 
tification is  spoken  of  as  the  opposite  of  condemnation. 
Take  Rom.  v.  18.  "  As  by  the  offence  of  one,  judg- 
ment came  upon  all  men  to  condemnation ;  even  so 
by  the  righteousness  of  one,  the  free  gift  came  upon 
all  men  unto  justification  of  life."  Here,  most  evi- 
dently, Justification  imports  a  judicial  clearing  from 
the  imputation  of  guilt,  in  the  precise  sense  and  de- 
gree in  which  condemnation  imports  a  judicial  fasten- 
ing of  the  imputation  of  guilt.  The  same  appears  in 
Rom.  viii.  23.  Who  shall  lay  any  thing  to  the 
charge  of  God's  elect?  It  is  God  thdit  J ustifieth;  who 
is  he  that  condemnethV  Here  is  the  idea  of  a  court, 
a  tribunal,  a  person  arraigned  ;  the  accuser  is  called ; 
the  whole  is  judicial;  and  if,  by  the  condemnation 
spoken  of,  we  could  understand  an  act  of  the  Judge 
making  the  accused  guilty  by  the  infusion  of  un- 
righteousness ;  then  also  by  the  Justification  spoken 
of,  we  might  understand  an  act  of  the  Judge  making 
the  accused  just  by  an  infusion  of  righteousness ;  but 
if  this  interpretation  would  be  absurd  in  the  former 
case,  so  must  it  be  in  the  latter  ;  for  the  two  must  evi- 
dently be  interpreted  alike. 

But  it  is  not  necessary  to  go  very  particularly  into 
the  proof  of  the  judicial  sense  of  the  word  Justifica- 
tion in  the  Scriptures.  The  great  matter  is  to  keep 
clear  the  essential  difference  between  Justification 


•  See  Job  ix.  2.3.    Ps.  cxliii.  2.    Rom.  iii.  8.    Acts  xiii.  .39. 


62 


and  Sanctification ;  between  the  former,  as  opposed 
to  the  imputation  of  guilt,  and  the  latter,  to  the  in- 
dwelling of  unholiness ;  the  former  as  a  restoration  to 
favour ;  the  latter,  to  purity ;  this,  as  the  act  of  God 
within  us,  changing  our  moral  character;  the  other, 
as  the  act  of  God  without  us,  changing  our  relative 
state;  blessings  inseparable  indeed,  but  essentially 
distinct.  ^'  There  be  two  kinds  of  Christian  righte- 
ousness; (says  Hooker)  the  one  without  as  which  we 
have  by  imputation ;  the  other  in  us,  which  consist- 
eth  of  Faith,  Hope,  Charity,  and  other  Christian 
virtues — God  giveth  us  both  the  one  justice  and  the 
other;  the  one  by  accepting  us  for  righteous  in 
Christ;  the  other  by  working  Christian  righteous- 
ness in  us." 

In  Bishop  Beveridge,  of  most  venerable  memory, 
we  thus  read : 

*'  It  is  evident  that  the  Holy  Ghost  useth  this  word  Justification  to 
signify  a  man's  being  accounted,  or  declared,  not  guilty  of  the  faults 
he  is  charged  with,  but  in  that  respect  a  just  and  righteous  person, 
and  that  too  before  some  Judge,  who  in  our  case  is  the  supreme 
Judge  of  the  world.  And  this  is  plainly  the  sense  wherein  our 
Church  also  useth  the  word  in  her  articles:  for  the  title  of  Xlth  Ar- 
ticle is  thus:  '■Of  the  Justification  of  Man  ;'  but  the  Article  itself  be- 
gins thus  :  '  We  are  accounted  righteous  before  God,'  &c. — which 
<:learly  shows  that  in  her  sense,  to  be  justified  is  the  same  with  being 
accounted  righteous  before  God  ;  which  I  therefore  observe  that  you 
may  not  be  mistaken  in  the  sense  of  the  word  as  it  is  used  by  the 
Church  and  by  the  Holy  Ghost  Himself  in  the  Holy  Scriptures,  like 
those  who  confound  Justification  and  Sanctification  together,  as 
if  they  were  one  and  the  same  thing:  although  the  Scriptures  plainly 
distinguish  them  ;  Sanctification  being  God's  act  in  us,  whereby  we 
are  made  righteous  in  ourselves  ;  but  Justification  is  God's  act  in 
Himself,  whereby  we  are  accounted  righteous  by  him,  and  shall  be 
declared  so  at  the  judgment  of  the  great  day."^ 


'  Beveridge's  Sermons  No.  74. 


63 


Such  then  being  the  judicial  or  forensic  sense  in 
which  man  is  said  to  be  justified  before  God,  a  sense 
so  essentially  important  to  be  kept  distinctly  in  mind, 
that,  as  Bishop  Andrewes  says,  we  shall  never  take 
the  state  of  the  question  aright  unless  we  consider  it 
in  this  view;"^  and  since  a  judicial  process  implies 
a  law,  according  to  which  it  is  conducted,  and  a  law 
requires,  of  course,  a  perfect  fulfilment  of  its  precepts, 
in  other  words,  a  perfect  righteousness,  before  any  can 
be  justified  by  sentence  of  the  Judge ;  the  question 
occurs,  by  what  righteousness  is  a  sinner  to  be  justi- 
fied before  God?"" 

The  reader  is  requested  to  mark  particularly  ^'  the 
two  kinds  of  Christian  righteousness  "  spoken  of  by 
Hooker  as  above — the  one  not  in  us,  which  we  have 
by  imputation,"  whereon  Justification,  which  Bever- 
idge  calls  the  act  of  God  in  himself  "  is  based ;  the 
other  in  us,  a  personal,  inwrought  righteousness,  which 
constitues  our  Sanctification,  and  which  Beveridge 
calls  "God's  act "  not  in  himself  like  the  other,  but 
"  in  us,  whereby  we  are  made  righteous  in  ourselves." 
"  That  both  these  there  are,  (says  Bishop  Andrewes,) 
there  is  no  question."  But  let  us  quote  this  great 
divine  more  fully. 

*'  In  the  Scripture,  there  is  a  double  Righteousness  set  down,  both 
in  the  Old  and  in  the  New  Testament.  In  the  Old,  and  in  the  very- 
first  place  that  Righteousness  is  named  in  the  Bible  :  *  Abraham  be- 
lieved, and  it  was  accounted  unto  him  for  righteousness.'  A  Right- 
eousness accownfed  /  And  again,  (in  the  very  next  line)  it  is  men- 
tioned, *  Abraham  will  teach  his  house  to  do  Righteousness.^  A 
righteousness  done  !  In  the  New  Testament,  likewise.  The  for- 
mer, in  one  chapter,  (Rom.  iv.)  no  fewer  than  eleven  times;  Repu- 


'  Sermons  (Justification)  fol.  725.    2  Charge  by  the  Author  on  Justification. 


64 


tatinii  est  illi  adjustitiam — *  It  is  accounted  to  him  for  righteous^ 
ness^ — a  Reputed  Righteousness!  The  latter  in  St.  John — ''He 
that  doeih  righteousness,  is  righteous' — a  Righteousness  done  f 
or  these,  the  latter.  Philosophers  themselves  conceived,  and  acknow- 
ledged ;  the  other  is  proper  to  Christians  only,  and  altogether  un- 
known in  Philosophy.  The  one  is  a  quality  of  the  party.  The 
other  an  act  of  the  Judge  declaring  or  pronouncing  righteous.  Tiie 
one,  ours  by  influence  or  infusion  ;  the  other,  by  account,  or  impu- 
tation.    Thai  both  these  there  are,  there  is  no  question.'  " 

The  reader  is  requested  to  mark  the  words  of  Bi- 
shop Andrewes,  that,  of  the  existence  of  these  two 
kinds  of  righteousness,  so  distinct  in  nature  and  of- 
fice, and  yet  equally  necessary,  he  knew  of  no  ques- 
tion. This  fundamental  distinction  betw^een  the  right- 
eousness of  Justification,  and  that  of  Sanctification, 
so  -universal  in  Protestant  Divinity,  is  found  by 
Hooker,  as  in  other  places  of  Scripture,  so  especially 
in  that  notable  passage  of  St.  Paul,  (1  Cor.  i.  30) 
where  the  Apostle  says,  "Of  him  are  ye  in  Christ 
Jesus,  who  of  God  is  made  unto  us  wisdom,  right- 
eousness, sanctification  and  redemption."  Here  most 
evidently  there  is  a  righteousness  spoken  of,  which  is 
as  much  distinguished  from  sanctification,  as  wisdom 
is  made  distinct  from  righteousness.  Hence,  says 
Hooker,  on  this  passage,  Christ  is  made  "Righteous- 
ness, because  he  hath  offered  up  himself  a  sacrifice 
for  sin ;  Sanctification,  because  he  hath  given  us  his 
Spirit."^  And  this  very  distinction  does  he  con- 
sider the  key  to  the  whole  controversy  on  the 
subject  of  Justification,  with  the  Church  of  Pome. 
"It  openeth  the  way  (he  says)  to  the  understanding 
of  that  grand  question^  which  hangeth  yet  in  contro- 


•  Sermon  on  Justification. 


2  Discourse  of  Justification,  §  2. 


65 


versy  between  us  and  the  Church  of  Rome,  about 
the  matter  of  Justifying  righteousness."^  It  is  a  dis- 
tinction which  the  Church  of  Rome  entirely  denies ; 
and  which  the  Church  of  England,  with  all  the 
Churches  of  the  Reformation,  has  most  earnestly 
maintained,  as  fundamental  in  the  Gospel  plan  of 
our  salvation. 

Now  it  is  precisely  the  same  distinction  that  opens 
the  way  to  the  understanding  of  the  whole  contro- 
versy between  the  doctrines  of  the  Church  of  Eng- 
land, and  the  derived  Church  in  America,  on  the 
one  hand,  and  those  of  Oxford  divinity  on  the  other, 
as  to  the  matter  of  Justifying  righteousness.  The 
whole  of  Oxford  Divinity  is  founded  upon  the  denial 
of  that  distinction,  w^hich  we  have  expressed  above 
in  the  words  of  St.  Paul,  and  his  expositors,  Hooker, 
Bishops  Andrewes  and  Beveridge.  While,  on  the 
contrary,  the  whole  of  the  divinity  of  the  Reformed 
Church  of  England,  as  to  the  way  of  salvation,  is 
founded  upon  the  belief  of  that  distinction.  The 
latter  asserts  a  righteousness  external  and  imputed, 
and  also  a  righteousness  internal  and  inwrought  by 
the  Spirit ;  the  two  inseparably  connected  indeed, 
but  of  very  different  natures  and  offices.  The  for- 
mer acknowledges  that  only  which  is  internal  and 
inwrought.  And  this  is  the  key  to  all  the  labyrinth 
of  Oxfordism,  precisely  as  it  is  also  to  all  the  sinuosi- 
ties of  Romanism.^ 

'  Discourse  of  Justification,  §  3. 

2"  In  all  doctrinal  discussions,  the  undeveloped  germs  of  many  diversities  of 
practice  and  moral  character  lie  thick  together,  and  in  small  compass,  and  as  if 
promiscuously  and  without  essential  differences.  The  highest  truths  differ  from 
the  most  miserable  delusions,  by  what  appears  to  be  a  few  words  or  letteia." 
—Tracts  for  the  Times,  No.  79,  Am.  Ed.  vol.  iii.  p.  513. 
9 


66 


Mr.  Newman,  in  his  Lectures  on  Justification, 
writes  as  follows : 

«'  It  is  usual  at  the  present  day  to  lay  great  stress  on  the  distinc- 
tion between  deliverance  from  guilt,  and  deliverance  from  sin  ;  to 
lay  down  as  a  first  principle,  that  these  are  two  coincident  indeed, 
and  contemporary,  but  altogether  independent  benefits,  to  call  them 
justification  and  renewal,  and  to  consider  that  any  confusion  be- 
tween them  argues  serious  and  alarming  ignorance  of  Christian 
truth."  "  This  distinction,"  Mr.  Newman  says,  "  is  not  scriptu- 
ral.'* "  In  truth,  Scripture  speaks  of  but  one  gift  which  it  some- 
times calls  renewal,  somel'imes  justification,  according  as  it  views  it, 
passing  to  and  fro,  from  one  to  the  other,  so  rapidly,  so  abruptly,  as 
to  force  upon  us  irresistibly  the  inference  that  they  are  really  one."^ 

Some  fifteen  or  twenty  pages  are  occupied  by  Mr. 
Newman  in  making  good  this  position,  so  directly  in 
the  teeth  of  the  doctrines  given  above,  from  Hooker, 
&c.,  as  the  very  corner  stone  of  his  system. 

Then,  since  in  the  view  of  these  divines,  there  is 
but  one  righteousness,  and  that  is  the  righteousness 
of  renewal  or  sanctification,  and  called  the  righte- 
ousness of  Justification,  only  because  viewed  some- 
times in  a  different  aspect  or  relation ;  it  is,  of  course, 
to  be  inferred  that  when  we  ask  the  great  question  of 
the  Reformation,  what  is  that  on  account  of  which 
we  may  be  absolved  from  the  sentence  of  condemna- 
tion, received  into  the  favour  of  God,  adopted  as  sons 
and  accepted  to  everlasting  life  ;"  or,  to  use  the  words 
of  Hooker,  ''what  is  that  righteousness  whereby  a 
Christian  man  is  justified  ?"  The  answer  of  Oxford 
divinity  can  be  nothing  else  than  that  the  righteous- 
ness of  renewal  or  sanctification  is  that  righteousness. 

This  is  expressly  stated  by  Mr.  Newman  as  fol- 
lows : 


'  Newman's  Lect.  pp.  42,  43  ;  also  pp.  120,  129. 


67 


One  side  says  lhat  the  righteousness  in  which  God  accepts  us 
is  inherent,  wrought  in  us,  hy  the  grace  flowing  from  Christ's  atone- 
ment ;  the  other  says  it  is  external,  reputed,  being  Christ's  own 
sacred  and  most  perfect  obedience  on  earth,  viewed  by  a  merciful 
God,  as  if  it  were  ours.  And  issue  is  joined  on  the  following  ques- 
tion, whether  Justification  means  in  Scripture,  counting  us  righteous 
or  making  us  righteous."^ 

Now  which  of  these  two  sides  does  Mr.  Newman 
select  ?  The  latter  most  decidedly.  That  the  mere 
word  Justification,  means  counting  us  righteous,  or 
imputing  to  us  righteousness,  he  must  get  into  his 
system,  some  how  or  other,  since  he  grants  that  but 
one  passage  can  be  produced  where  justification  is 
used  for  making  righteous,  and  there  the  reading  is 
doubtful."^  Indeed,  no  one  can  assert  more  strong- 
ly than  Mr.  Newman  the  exclusively  forensic  or  judi- 
cial use  of  the  7vord  "  Justify,"  in  the  Scriptures. 

"  Justification  extends  to  the  present,  as  well  as  the  past ;  yet,  if 
so,  still  it  must  mean  an  imputation  or  declaration;  or  it  would 
cease  to  have  respect  to  the  past.  And  if  it  be  once  granted  to  mean 
an  imputation,  it  cannot  mean  any  thing  else;  for  it  cannot  have  two 
meanings  at  once."^ 

But  while  the  name  is  forensic  and  imputative,  the 
thing  (he  says)  is  moral  and  effective.  Justification 
is  nominally  accounting  us  righteous,  really  it  is 
making  us  righteousness. 

I  would  thus  explain  myself."  "To  justify  means  counting 
righteous,  but  includes  under  its  meaning  '  making  righteous  ;'  in 
other  words  the  sense  of  the  term  is  counting  righteous,  and  the 
sense  of  the  thing  denoted  by  it  is  making  righteous.  In  the  a&- 
stract,  it  is  counting  righteous,  in  the  concrete,  a  making  righteous."* 

Thus,  while  the  Scriptures,  as  Mr.  Newman  s6« 
distinctly  grants,  never  mean  by  the  word,  Justifica- 


'  Lectures,  p.  67.         2  ib.  p.  75.  » lb.  p.  72.         *  lb.  p.  70. 


68 


tion,  the  snaking  of  us  personally  righteous,  and  al- 
ways mean  by  it  the  accounting  of  us  righteous ; 
they  never  mean  by  the  tiling^  Justification,  the  ac- 
counting, but  always  the  making  of  us  righteous. 

Then  what  can  this  writer  mean  by  imputation  or 
the  accounting  of  righteousness,  on  the  part  of  God, 
to  the  sinner  ?  To  this  question  the  reader's  atten- 
tion is  especially  requested,  because  it  is  the  free  use 
of  such  familiar  words,  in  these  Avritings,  which  has 
made  so  many  readers  suppose  that  the  difference 
between  them  and  those  who  object  to  them  cannot 
be  of  much  importance.  Now  the  sense  of  the 
Church  of  England,  as  to  imputation,  is  thus  given 
by  Bishop  Beveridge,  on  the  Article  "of  Justifica- 
tion." 

Having  quoted  the  text  which  speaks  of  Christ,  as 
having  been  made  sin  for  us,  that  ive  might  he  made 
the  righteousness  of  God  in  him,  (2  Cor.  v.  21,)  he 
says: 

"How  was  Christ  made  sin  for  us?  Not  by  our  sins  inherent  i» 
him,  that  is  horrid  blasphemy  ;  but  by  our  sins  imputed  to  him,  that 
is  true  divinity.  And  as  he  was  made  sin  for  us,  not  by  the  inhe- 
sion of  our  sins  in  him,  but  by  the  imputation  of  our  sins  to  him  ;  so 
we  are  made  the  righteousness  of  God  in  him,  by  the  imputation  of 
his  righteousness  to  us,  not  by  the  inhesion  of  his  righteousness  in 
us.  He  was  accounted  as  a  sinner,  and  therefore  punished  for  us  ; 
we  are  accounted  as  righteous,  and  therefore  glorified  in  him.  He 
was  accounted  as  a  sinner,  for  us,  and  therefore  he  was  condemned, 
we  are  accounted  as  righteous  in  him  ;  and  so  we  are  justified.  And 
this  is  the  right  notion  of  justification,  as  distinguished  from  sancti- 
fication.  Not  as  if  these  two  were  ever  severed  or  divided  in  their 
subjects  ;  no,  every  one  that  is  justified,  is  also  sanctified;  and  every 
one  that  is  sanctified,  is  also  justified.  But  yet,  the  acts  of  sanctifi- 
cation  and  justification  are  two  distinct  things ;  for  the  one  denotes 
the  imputation  of  righteousness  to  us;  the  other,  the  implantation  of 


69 


righteousness  in  us.  And,  therefore,  though  they  be  both  the  acts 
of  God,  yet  the  one  is  the  act  of  God  towards  us  ;  the  other  is  the 
act  of  God  in  us.  By  our  sanctification,  we  are  made  righteous  in 
ourselves,  but  not  accounted  righteous  by  God  ;  by  our  justification 
we  are  accounted  righteous  by  God,  but  not  made  righteous  in  our- 
selves." 

Let  not  the  reader  suppose  that  it  is  in  any  such 
sense  as  this  of  Beveridge,  which  is  no  other  than 
the  ordinary  sense,  that  Oxford  divinity  speaks  of 
righteousness  being  accounted  or  imputed  unto  the 
sinner — what  then  ? 

"  It  is  a  sort  of  prophecy,  (says  Mr.  Newman,)  an- 
nouncing God's  purposes  (of  making  us  righteous) 
before  the  event  and  working  towards  their  fulfil- 
ment."^ This  he  illustrates  by  the  prophecies.  As 
the  chosen  people  were  accounted  as  being  already 
formed,  when  as  yet  they  were  only  promised,  be- 
cause God  intended  to  form  them  ;  such  is  justifica- 
tion as  regards  an  individual,"  so  far  as  he  is  ac- 
counted just.^  God  intends  to  make  him  righteous, 
and  therefore  declares  him  to  be  righteous,  and  with 
the  declaration,  sends  forth  the  power  that  begins 
the  work.  Thus, 

"  In  justification  the  whole  course  of  sanctification  is  anticipated, 
reclconed,  or  imputed  to  us,  in  its  very  beginning."  "  It  is  a  pro- 
nouncing holy,  while  it  proceeds  to  make  holy.  As  Almighty  God 
in  the  beginning  created  the  world  augustly  and  in  form,  speaking 
the  word,  not  to  exclude,  but  to  proclaim  the  deed — so  does  he  now 
(in  Justification,)  create  the  soul  by  the  breath  of  his  mouth,  by  the 
sacrament  of  his  voice."^ 

So  then,  for  God  to  make  us  righteous,  and  to  cre- 
ate the  world  by  His  word,  are,  in  reference  to  impu- 
tation, similar  events.    Just  as  far  then  as  you  could. 


»  p.  89. 


2  p.  89. 


3  p.  79,  80. 


70 


with  any  propriety,  call  the  creation  of  the  world  a 
forensic  or  judicial  act,  because  it  was  preceded  by 
God's  word,  so  far,  and  only  so  far,  is  the  justification 
of  the  soul  forensic  or  judicial,  being,  (according  to 
Mr.  N.)  a  new  creating  act,  preceded  by  "the  voice 
of  the  Lord."  Precisely  so  far  as  the  world  may  be 
said  to  have  been  accounted  as  created,  before  it  was 
created,  because  God  intended  to  create  it,  and  be- 
cause, with  His  word,  indicating  his  will.  He  sent 
out  his  power  to  effect  that  will;  so  far,  according  to 
Mr.  N.,  is  the  sinner  said  to  be  accounted  righteous, 
before  he  is  righteous,  because  God  intends  to  make 
him  righteous,  and,  with  the  will  declared,  sends 
forth  the  grace  that  renews  his  heart  and  accomplishes 
his  sanctification.    Thus  we  read  that : 

"  Imputed  righteousness  is  the  coming  in  of  actual  righteousness. 
They  whom  God's  sovereign  voice  pronounces  just,  forthwith  be- 
come just.  He  declares  a  fact,  and  makes  it  a  fact  by  declaring  it. 
He  imputes,  not  a  name,  but  a  substantial  word,  which,  being  en- 
grafted in  our  hearts,  is  able  to  save  our  souls.  God's  word  effects 
what  it  announce s.^''^ 


1  Lectures  pp.' 86,  87,  and  the  whole  of  Lecture  IIL 

Should  a  physician,  having  a  full  inlention  and  a  full  ability  to  heal  a  sick 
man,  say  to  him  'I  will  heal  you,'  and  instantly  begin  to  effect  a  change  in  his 
health,  which,  if  continued,  would  result  in  entire  restoration,  and  should  that 
man  be  already,  by  that  physician,  accounted  well,  or  be  said  to  have  imputed 
health,  the  case  would  be  precisely  parallel  to  what  Mr.  N.  understands  by  ac- 
cowiting  righteous  as  distinct  from  making  righteous.  In  other  words,  imputed 
righteousness  is  simply  a  promised,  declared  and  imperfectly-accomplished 
Sanctification. 

Mr.  Newman,  in  a  note,  refers  to  Mr.  Knox,  as  illustrating  his  view  of  ac- 
counting righteous,  by  precisely  the  same  reference  to  the  creation,  and  in  the 
same  sense — (see  note  on  p.  87  of  Lectures.)  The  following  is  the  illustration 
of  Mr.  Knox,  as  interpreted  by  the  British  Critic:  "In  the  creanon  God  said 
Let  there  he  Light,  and  there  was  Light}  and  then  he  saw  that  the  Light  -was 
good.  So  in  the  work  of  redemption,  God  says  to  the  chaos  of  our  fallen  na- 
ture, let  there  be  light,  and  there  is  light,  even  the  light  of  faith,  the  grand  vital- 


71 


And  this  is  all  that  Mr.  Newman  means  by  that 
forensic  sense  of  the  word  Justification  so  universal  in 
the  Scriptures.  It  ncA^er  means  (he  says)  the  maMng 
us  righteous ;  and  yet  it  differs  from  that  sense,  only 
so  far  as  the  command,  ''Let  there  he  light'''  differs 
from  the  act  of  God  creating  the  light!  "What  is  this 
but  most  egregious  trifling  with  a  most  sacred  sub- 
ject :  a  violent  subjection  of  a  plain  scriptural  doctrine 
to  the  most  crushing  screws  of  system-making,  till  it 
is  flattened  to  nothingness,  for  the  purpose  of  render- 
ing it  admissible  into  a  frame-work  of  doctrine  pre- 
viously set  up,  independently  of  the  most  manifest 
testimonies  of  Inspiration  ? 

Now  since,  according  to  Mr.  N.,  Justification  is  an 
accounting  of  us  righteous  only  ''in  the  sense  of  the 
term;'"  and  since  it  is  a  r^iaMng  of  us  righteous  ''in 
the  sense  of  the  thing  denoted  by  it;"  and  as  we  are 
seeking  for  a  thing,  when  we  ask  what  is  the  righte- 
ousness by  which  we  are  justified,  and  care  only  for 
terms,  so  far  as  they  denote  things ;  we  must  be  ex- 
cused, if  we  lay  aside  the  above  distinctions,  as  vain 
and  worthless,  and  conclude  that  Justification,  accord- 
ing to  Mr.  Newman,  is  neither  more  nor  less  than 
maMng  us  righteous,  by  "a  righteousness  inherent, 

izing  principle.  And  when  once  this  light  is  actually  given,  he  pronounces  the 
individual  to  be  a  child  of  light.  In  other  words,  he  accounts  him  to  be  righte- 
ous. So  that  according  to  this  scheme,  God  justifies  man,  first  by  jnaking  him 
righteous;  and  then  again  by  pronouncing  him  to  be  righteous  when  he  is  ac- 
tually made  so.  And  the  whole  of  this  process  is  implied  in  the  term  justification. 
— Critic  No.  34,  p.  264.  Mr.  Newman's  idea  seems  to  be  a  little  worse  than  this 
His  accounting  is  a  declaration  of  what  is  to  be,  and  now,  by  the  force  of  the 
declaration,  begins  to  be.  Mr.  Knox  makes  it  a  declaration  of  what  is.  With 
the  former  we  are  accounted  righteous,  because  God  intends,  promises  and  be- 
gins to  efiect  our  righteousness;  with  the  latter,  because  we  are  actually  made 
righteous,    "/'am  jangling'!''' 


72 


wrought  in  us  by  the  grace  flowing  from  Christ's 
atonement."^  In  other  words,  it  is  neither  less,  nor 
more,  than  sanctification.  This,  Mr.  N.  in  so  many 
words  declares.  A  large  part  of  his  Lecture  II.  is  oc- 
cupied with  the  proof  that  Justification  and  Sanctifi- 
cation are  really  one;'"  that  to  distinguish  them  as 
"two  kinds  of  righteousness,"  is  ''not  scriptural."  He 
considers  himself  as  having  in  that  Lecture,  '' proved 
that  justification  and  sanctification  are  substantially 
the  same  thing; — parts  of  one  gift ;  properties,  quali- 
ties or  aspects  of  one."  In  the  sixth  Lecture,  he 
maintains  their  ^'identity,  in  matter  of  fact,  however 
we  may  vary  our  terms,  or  classify  our  ideas  " — (p. 
67,  68. 

This  then  is  the  righteousness  by  which  we  are 
justified  before  God,  according  to  Oxfordism;  that 
same  inwrought,  inherent  righteousness,  which,  in 
all  divinity,  is  called  sanctif  cation. 

Such  then  is  the  fundamental  doctrine,  the  grand 
distinguishing  feature  of  this  new  divinity,  asserted, 
with  so  much  assurance,  to  be  the  doctrine  of  the 
Church  of  England  and  of  her  standard  divines,  and 
now  attempted  to  be  set  up  on  high  in  the  Protestant 
Churches,  as  that  of  the  Primitive  Christians,  and  of 
the  writings  of  the  Apostles  and  Prophets.  Because 
of  its  being  the  very  corner-stone,  elect  and  precious, 
of  the  whole  system  of  this  new  divinity ;  not  only  has 
Mr.  Newman  devoted  a  whole  octavo  volume  to  its 
setting  forth,  and  Dr.  Pusey  another,  besides  the  ar- 
ticle on  that  subject  in  his  letter  to  the  Bishop  of  Ox- 
ford, so  that  on  no  one  subject  have  these  divines  be- 


'p.  67. 


7 


73 

stowed  near  so  much  of  the  labour  of  their  diligent 
press ;  but  in  the  course  of  their  illustration,  they 
have  used  such  a  variety  of  figures  and  modes  of  ex- 
planation as  to  leave  no  possibility  of  a  doubt  as  to 
their  justifying  righteousness  being  no  other  than 
that  of  sanctijication. 

Some  of  these  various  expressions  may  be  here  ex 
hibited. 

Our  Justification  is  made  to  consist  in  obedience. 
Cleanness  of  heart  and  spirit,  obedience  by  word  and 
deed,  this  alone  can  constitute  our  Justification." 
"  The  gift  of  righteousness  (for  Justification)  is  not 
an  imputation,  but  an  inward  work."^ 

The  righteousness  whereby  we  are  Justified  be- 
fore God,  is  made  to  consist  in  the  fulfilling  of  the 
Law  hy  us.  Because  love,  in  the  abstract,  is  said  by 
the  Apostle,  to  be  "the  fulfilling  of  the  law;"  as 
''perfect  love"  certainly  is;  therefore  the  love  of 
Christ  abiding  in  us;  such  love  as  Christians  have 
implanted  in  them  by  the  Spirit  of  God,  is  said  by 
Mr.  Newman  to  be    imputed  to  us  for  justification."^ 

"By  righteousness  is  meant  acceptable  obedience. 
We  needed  then  a  justification  or  making  righteous, 
and  this  might  become  ours  in  two  ways,  either  by 
dispensing  with  that  exact  obedience  which  the  law 
required,  or  by  enabling  us  to  fulfil  it.  Now  the 
remedy  lies  in  the  latter  alternative  only  ;  not  in 
lowering  the  law,  much  less  in  abolishing  it;  but  in 
bringing  up  our  hearts  to  it — attuning  them  to  its 
high  harmonies."  "If  he  (God)  counts  righteous,  it  is 
by  making  righteous  ;  if  He  justifies,  it  is  by  renewing  ; 
if  He  reconciles  us  to  him,  it  is  not  by  annihilating 


'  Lectures  on  Juslific.  pp.  34,  39, 
10 


Bib.  p.  101. 


74 


the  Law,  but  by  creating  in  us  new  wills  and  new 
powers  for  the  observance  of  it."^ 

Again,  we  learn  from  this  divinity,  that  those  who 
are  regenerate  in  Baptism,  can  and  do  so  fulfil  the 
divine  Law,  that  their  indwelling  righteousness  has 
in  it  a  satisfying  and  justifying  quality,  and  does 
justify  them  in  the  sight  of  God. 

That  indwelling  righteousness  is  called  by  Mr. 
Newman  the  propitiation  for  our  sins  in  God's 
sight,"  (p.  39.)  "We  become  inwardly  righteous, 
(justified)  in  the  same  sense  in  which  we  are  utterly 
reprobate  by  nature,  (p.  96.) 

But  we  are  reprobate  by  our  own  inherent  un- 
righteousness. It  follows  that,  according  to  this  di- 
vinity, we  must  become  justified  by  our  own  inhe- 
rent righteousness.^ 

1  Lectures,  pp.  35,  36. 

2 "That  in  our  natural  state,  and  by  our  o-ivn  strength,  (says  Mr.  Newman,) 
we  are  not,  and  cannot  be  justified  by  obedience,  is  admitted  on  all  hands.  But 
it  is  a  distinct  question  altogether,  whether,  with  the  presence  of  God,  the  Holy 
Ghost,  we  can  obey  unto  justification  ;  and  while  the  received  doctrine  in  all 
ages  of  the  Church  has  been  that  through  the  largeness  and  peculiarity  of  the 
gift  of  grace  we  can,  it  is  the  distinguishing  doctrine  of  the  first  Protestants, 
that  we  cannot."  (pp.  66,  67.)  "  In  the  same  sense  in  which  we  are  unrighteous 
or  displeasing  to  God,  by  nature,  we  are  actually  righteous  and  pleasing  to  Him 
in  a  state  of  grace.  Not  that  there  is  not  abundant  evil  still  remaining  in  us, 
but  that  justification  coming  to  us  in  the  power  and  inspiration  of  the  Spirit,  so 
far  dries  up  the  fountain  of  bitterness  and  impurity  that  we  are  forthwith  re- 
leased from  God's  wrath  and  damnation,  and  are  enabled  in  our  better  deeds  to 
please  Him.  It  places  us  above  the  line  in  the  same  sense  in  which  we  were 
below  it."  "  By  grace  we  are  gifted,  not  with  perfection,  but  with  a  principle 
hallowing  and  sweetening  all  that  we  are,  all  that  we  do  religiously,  sustaining, 
abiding,  and  (in  a  sense)  pleading  for  what  remains  of  sin  in  us,  making  inter- 
cession for  us  according  to  the  will  of  God."  "  And  here  we  see  in  what  sense 
Christians  are  enabled  to  fulfil  the  Law.  Christians  then  fulfil  the  Law  in  the 
very  sense  of  pleasing  God.  Not  that  we  are  able  to  please  Him  simply  and 
entirely,  (for  in  many  things  we  offend  all ;)  but  that  the  presence  of  the  Spirit 
is  a  aanctifying  virtue  in  our  hearts,  changing  the  character  of  our  services, 


75 


Again,  "Justification  consists  in  God's  inward 
presence."  "It  is  the  act  of  God  imparting  His  di- 
vine presence  to  the  soul,  through  baptism,  and  so 
making  us  the  temples  of  the  Holy  Ghost. 

''It  is  the  habitation  in  ns  of  God  the  Father,  and 
the  word  Incarnate,  through  the  Holy  Ghost,"  (p. 
47.)  *'  Christ  is  our  Righteousness  by  dwelling  in  us 
by  his  Spirit,  justifies  by  entering  into  us,  continues 
to  justify  us  by  remaining  in  us,"  (p.  51.)  "This 
divine  gift,  or  indwelling,  is  '  an  angelic  glory' 
which  Prophets  and  Apostles  exult  in  as  the  great 
gift  of  Divine  mercy,  as  the  rich  garment  of  salva- 
tion, and  the  enjewelled  robe  of  righteousness ;  a 
linen  clean  and  wliiteP  (p.  184.)  "This  is  the  glo- 
rious Shekinah  of  the  word  Incarnate,  the  true  wed- 
ding garment  in  which  the  soul  must  be  dressed," 
(220.)  This  doctrine  "  buries  self  in  the  absorbing 
vision  of  a  present,  an  indwelling  GodP  (220.) 

Again,  Justification  is  made  to  consist  in  "  the  in- 
ward application  of  the  atonement'' 

Let  it  not  be  supposed  that  in  this  language  there 
is  intended  the  least  resemblance  to  what  is  meant 
in  ordinary  language,  by  the  appropriation  of  the 
atonement  to  our  souls  by  the  instrumental  hand  of 
faith.   It  simply  means  that  Justification  consists  in 


making  our  obedience  new  in  kind,  not  merely  fuller  in  degree,  and  in  this 
sense  a  satisfying  obedience,  rising  up,  answering  to  the  kind  of  obedience 
which  is  due  from  us,  to  the  nature  of  the  claims  which  our  Creator,  Redeemer, 
and  Sanctifier  has  upon  us."  "  It  seems  then  that  a  Christian's  life  is  avail- 
able, justifying' ;  not  of  course  the  origin,  or  well-spring  of  our  acceptable- 
ness,  (God  forbid,)  &c.    (Led.  pp.  98,  99,  100,  101.) 

"  Works  done  in  faith,  though  mixed  with  evil,  are  good  in  themselves,  as 
being  the  fruits  of  the  Spirit."— (Note  to  p.  351.) 

'  Pusey's  Letters  to  Bishop  of  Oxford,  p.  42. 


76 


our  being  crucified  unto  sin — in  other  words,  as  be- 
fore, our  sanctification.  It  is,"  (says  Mr.  New- 
man,) the  setting  uj)  of  the  Cross  within  us'''  We 
have  been  accustomed  to  suppose  that  the  Israelites^ 
looking  upon  the  brazen  serpent  in  the  wilderness, 
was,  according  to  our  Saviour's  words,  (John  iii.  14, 
15,)  a  clear  illustration  of  how  we  are  to  look  unto 
the  great  atoning  sacrifice  for  sin,  on  the  cross,  and 
be  justified  through  the  obedience  and  death  of 
Christ.  But  such  is  far  from  being  the  teaching  we 
are  now  to  learn.  On  the  contrary,  had  that  serpent 
been  set  up  within  each  Israelite,  so  that  precisely  as 
the  poison  wherewith  he  was  dying  was  within,  so 
should  have  been  the  refuge — then  would  have 
been  typified  the  true  way  in  which  we  are  now  to 
be  justified^  viz:  htj  a  Christ  crucified  within  us} 

These  passages,  (and  similar  ones  occur  every 
where^)  will  sutfice  to  show  how  earnestly  and  en- 
tirely it  is  the  fundamental  principle  of  Oxford  Di- 


*  "  You  hear  men  speak  of  glorying  in  the  cross  of  Christ,  v^rho  are  utter 
strangers  to  the  nature  of  the  cross  as  actually  applied  to  them,  in  -water  and 
blood,  in  holiness  and  pain.  They  ihink  individuals  are  justified  immediate- 
ly by  the  great  atonement — justified  by  Christ's  death — Justified  by  what  they 
consider  looking  at  his  death.  Because  the  brazen  serpent  healed  by  being 
looked  at,  they  consider  that  Christ's  sacrifice  saves  by  the  mind's  contemplat- 
ing it. — Gazing  on  the  brazen  serpent  did  not  heal ;  but  God's  giving  invisi- 
bly the  gift  of  health  to  those  who  gazed.  So  Justification  is  a  power  exerted 
on  our  souls  by  Him,  as  the  healing  of  the  Israelites  was  a  power  exerted  on 
their  bodies.  Christ's  cross  does  not  justify  by  being  gazed  at  ix  faith,  but  by 
being  actually  set  up  within  us,  and  that  not  by  our  act,  but  by  God's  invisi- 
ble grace.  Men  sit  and  gaze  and  speak  of  the  great  Atonement  and  think  this 
is  appropriating  it.  Men  say  that  faith  is  an  apprehending-  and  applying; 
FAITH  CAXNOT  iiEALLY  APPLY  IT ;  man  caunot  make  the  Saviour  of  the  world 
his  own ;  the  cross  must  be  brought  home  to  us,  not  in  word,  but  in  power, 
and  this  is,  the  work  of  the  Spirit. —  This  is  Justi^/i cation  " — Newman's  Lcct. 
pp.  200,  201,203. 


77 


vinity,  that  the  Justifying  righteousness  has  no  ex- 
ternal character  at  all,  is  not  in  any  true  sense  a 
rio^hteousness  accounted  unto  us,  is  identical  with 
Sanctification,  a  righteousness  in  us  and  not  in  Christy 
personal,  as  opposed  to  imputed,  a  righteousness  in- 
fused and  inherent,  and  therefore  our  own  righteous- 
ness, as  much  as  our  souls,  our  intellect,  our  affec- 
tions are  our  own. 

We  proceed.  Justification  according  to  this  Di- 
vinity is  PROGRESSIVE,  increasing  as  sanctification  in- 
creases. This  is  expressed  by  Dr.  Pusey  as  follows  : 

"  We  are  by  baptism  brought  into  a  state  of  salvation  or  justifi- 
cation, (for  the  words  are  thus  far  equivalent,)  a  state  into  which 
we  were  brought  of  God's  free  mercy  alone,  without  works,  but  in 
which  having  been  placed,  we  are  to  '  work  out  our  salvation  with 
fear  and  trembling,'  through  the  indwelling  Spirit  of 'God,  working 
in  us  to  will  and  to  do  of  his  good  pleasure;'  a  state  admitting  of 
degrees  according  to  the  degree  of  sanctification — (although  the 
first  act  whereby  we  were  brought  into  it  did  not ;)  a  state  admit- 
ting of  relapses  and  recoveries,  but  which  is  weakened  by  every  re- 
lapse, injured  by  lesser,  destroyed  for  the  time  by  grievous  sin  ; 
and  after  such  sin,  recovered  with  difficulty,  in  proportion  to  the 
greatness  of  the  sin,  and  the  degree  of  its  wilfulness,  and  of  the 
grace  withstood."* 

Now  the  meaning  of  all  this,  as  interpreted  in  Mr. 
Newman,  is  that  when  a  sinner  comes  to  Baptism,  he 
comes  without  any  of  that  indwelling  righteousness  in 
which  Justification  consists.  He  is  therefore  brought 
into  a  state  of  Justification  without  antecedent  works, 
of  God's  free  mercy  alone,  for  Christ's  sake — that  is, 
his  past  sins  are  pardoned,  and  he  is  justified  by 
having  an  indwelling  righteousness  implanted  in 
him  by  the  Holy  Spirit,  in  virtue  of  the  passion  of 


1  Letter,  pp.  54,  55. 


78 


Christ.  This  takes  place  only  at  Baptism.  This  first 
act  of  making  righteous,  does  not  admit  of  degrees, 
any  more  than  does  the  first  act  of  Sanctification, 
which  is  Regeneration — but  after  that,  Justification 
is  greater  or  less,  increases  or  diminishes,  precisely 
according  to  the  degree  of  Sanctification/ 

The  reader  will  now  be  g-ood  enouo^h  to  mark  the 
position  occupied  in  this  scheme  by  that  which  St. 
Paul  so  exclusively  gloried  in,  which  he  so  exclu- 
sively preached,  which  stands  so  conspicuously  in 
the  creeds  and  hopes  of  Christians,  which  so  fills  the 
petitions  of  our  Liturgy,  and  the  hearts  of  all  who 
devoutly  take  up  its  hallowed  strains — the  cross  of 
Christ,  the  deaths  the  Atonement  of  our  blessed  Lord. 

Read  in  our  Homilies  and  great  writers,  of  the 
righteousness  of  Christ,  as  constituting  our  justifica- 

^  Jiistijicatio  impii,  says  Aquinas,  a  Deo  in  instanti — P.  12.  Q.  113.  a.  7. 
"  Justification  of  the  ungodly  takes  place  instantaneously."  This  from  the  Ro- 
mish Saint,  refers  also  to  what  takes  place  in  Baptism,  the  first  Justification. 

Christians  (says  Mr.  N.)  are  justified  by  the  communication  of  an  inward,  most 
sacred,  and  most  mysterious  gift.  From  the  very  time  of  Baptism,  they  are  tem- 
ples of  the  Holy  Ghost.  This  is  what  is  common  to  all.  The  fact  that  we  are 
the  Temple  of  God  does  not  admit  of  more  or  less.  Righteousness  then,  con- 
sidered as  the  state  of  being  God's  temple,  cannot  be  increased;  but  considered 
as  the  divine  glory  which  that  state  implies,  it  can  be  increased,  as  the  pillar  of 
cloud  which  guided  the  Israelites  could  become  more  or  less  bright.  Justifica- 
tion being  acceptableness  with  God,  all  beings  who  are  justified  differ  from  all 
who  are  not,  in  their  very  condition.  In  this  sense,  it  is  as  absurd  to  speak  of 
our  being  more  justified,  as  of  life,  or  colour,  or  any  other  abstract  idea,  increas- 
ing. But  when  we  compare  the  various  orders  of  just  and  acceptable  beings 
with  one  another,  we  see  that  though  they  all  are  in  God's  favour,  some  may 
be  more  pleasant,  acceptable,  righteous  than  others,  that  is,  may  have  more  of 
the  light  of  God's  countenance  shed  on  them  ;  in  this  sense  their  Justification 
does  admit  of  increase  and  degrees,  and  whether  we  say  justification  depends  on 
faith  or  on  obedience,  in  the  same  degree  that  faith  or  obedience  grows,  so  does 
justification.  And  again,  as  Holy  Communion  conveys  a  more  aiofiil  presence 
of  God,  than  Holy  Baptism,  so  must  it  be  the  instrument  of  a  higher  justifica- 
tion."— JsCe-tomarC a  Led.  168,  169. 


79 


tion.  For  example,  the  Homily  on  Salvation  says, 
that  what  the  Apostle  calls  the  Justice  (Righteous- 
ness) of  God  in  our  Justification,  is  that  righteous- 
ness of  Christ  which  consisteth  in  paying  our 
ransom  and  fulfilling  of  the  Law."^  Thus  Hooker 
says,  ''the  external  righteousness  of  Jesus  Christ, 
which  is  imputed,"  is  that  by  which  we  are  justified, 
distinoruishinor  it  from  *'the  habitual  rif^hteousness  of 
the  Spirit,  which  is  engrafted."^  But  ''it  appears 
(we  use  the  language  of  the  British  Critic)  from  the 
whole  tenor  of  his  work,  that  Mr.  Newman  recoils 
with  something  approaching  to  a  positive  antipathy, 
from  the  thought  of  a  justification  external  to  our- 
selves. He  seems  to  derive  but  meagre  satisfaction 
from  the  contemplation  of  what  was  done  for  us 
eighteen  hundred  years  ago."'  In  truth,  what  Hooker 
and  the  Homily,  in  the  above  passages,  mean  by  the 
righteousness  of  Christ,  a  Mediatorial  righteousness, 
wrought  out  for  us  by  his  obedience  and  death,  and 
made  ours  by  imputation  only,  through  the  instru- 
mental agency  of  faith  alone,  has  no  place  in  Oxford 
Divinity.  Its  very  existence  is  denied.  When  Paul, 
in  the  Epistle  to  the  Philippians,  says  :  "  that  I  might 
win  Christ  and  be  found  in  him;  not  having  mine 
own  righteousness  which  is  of  the  law,  but  that 
which  is  through  the  faith  of  Christ,  the  righteous- 
ness which  is  of  God  through  faith;''  it  is  denied 
that  he  speaks  of  two  kinds  of  righteousness,  the 
one,  his  own,  of  works ;  the  other,  of  Christ  and  of 
faith ;  the  former  of  the  law,  the  latter  not  of  the 
law  ;  it  is  maintained  that  he  speaks  throughout  only 


'  Homily  of  Salvation,  part  1. 


-Discourse  of  Justification,  ^21. 


80 


of  a  righteousness  of  the  law  ^  pi  obedience,  of  works; 
a  righteousness  of  Ms  own,  and  that  the  only  differ- 
ence intended  is  that  between  obedience  in  a  natural 
state,  by  ones  own  strength,  and  obedience  in  a  con- 
verted state,  by  grace  helping,  obedience  inwrought 
by  the  grace  of  God,  in  Christ,  and  therefore  called 
"the  Righteousness  of  God  by  faith."^ 

But  does  this  scheme  entirely  exclude  the  Merits 
of  Christ  ?  We  answer  in  the  words  of  Mr.  Knox, 
which  perfectly  express  the  sense  of  Mr.  Newman. 
"  Doubtless  the  Church  never  loses  sight  of  the 
merits  of  our  blessed  Saviour ;  but  she  confides  in 
them,  not  as  a  substitute  for  internal  grace,  (in  Justifi- 
cation,) but  as  an  infallible  security  that  this  grace 
shall  be  freely  communicated  to  all  who  cordially 
ask  it."' 

Then  the  doctrine  is ;  The  merits  of  Christ  have 
purchased  for  us  the  grace  of  Sanctification,  by 
which  we  are  made  righteous  for  Christ's  sake. 
When  a  sinner  first  turns  to  God,  his  past  sins  are 
pardoned  freely,  through  the  merits  of  Christ ;  after 
that,  his  acceptableness  depends  upon  his  fulfilling 
the  law.  He  fulfils  the  law  by  having  a  righteous- 
ness implanted  in  his  heart  at  Baptism,  for  Christ's 
sake.  By  that  he  works  out  his  salvation.  His 
works  are  now  good  in  themselves''  "Love  is  imputed 
to  him  for  righteousness."  "His  life  is  available, 
justifying.''  He  looks  unto  himself  to  a  "  cross  with- 
in," for  acceptableness  and  peace.  He  can,  he  does, 
fulfil  the  Law  for  righteousness,  unto  salvation. 
Justification,  at  its  commencement,  was  chiefly  par- 


'  See  Newman,  p.  128. 


81 


don ;  it  becomes  less  and  less  as  it  advances,  and 
becomes  more  and  more  simply  sanctification.  It 
ends  in  being  not  pardon,  but  all  sanctification^  so 
that  as  Mr.  Newman  expressly  says,  the  righteous- 
ness wherein  we  must  stand  at  the  last  day,  is  not 
Christ's  own  imputed  obedience,  but  our  good 
ivorhs.''^ 

Now  see  what  he  does  with  the  cross  of  Christ, 
and  what  he  means  by  preaching,  and  glorying  in 
that  cross. 

'*  The  cross  in  which  St.  Paul  gloried,  was  not  (what  persons 
among  ourselves  would  take  it  to  be,  without  even  the  plea  of  being 
literal,  as  the  Romanists  have,)  the  actual  sacrifice  on  the  cross; 
but  it  is  that  sacrifice  coming  in  power  to  him  who  has  faith  in  it, 
and  converting  his  body  and  soul  into  a  sacrifice.  It  is  the  cross  re- 
alized, present,  living  in  him,  sealing  him,  separating  him  from  the 
world,  sanctifying  him,  aflflicting  him."^ 

Such  is  the  inward  application  of  the  Atonement." 
cross  erected  within,  made  ours  by  our  being 
marked  with  it."  To  glory  in  the  cross  of  Christ 
then  is  to  glory  in  our  own  cross,  in  our  own  cruci- 
fixion, our  own  sanctification.  To  preach  Christ  cru- 
cified is  not  to  preach  Christ  crucified  on  the  cross 
of  Calvary,  making  atonement ;  but  Christ  ivithin  us, 
crucifying  our  flesh,  ''with  its  affections  and  lusts." 
To  look  unto  Jesus,  as  the  Israelites  looked  upon  the 
brazen  serpent,  is  not  to  behold  the  Lamb  of  God 
lifted  up  on  the  cross  ''rvithout  the  gate,''  but  within 
our  heai'ts;  not  crucified,  but  crucifying;  not  suffer- 
ing for  us,  but  causing  us  to  suffer  for  him  ;  not  satis- 
fying the  law  for  us,  but  enabling  us  to  satisfy  the 
law  for  ourselves.    Alas !  alas !  if  this  be  true,  we 


11 


1  Lectures,  p.  60, 


2  lb.  p.  206. 


82 


must  turn  our  creeds,  and  hopes,  and  sermons,  and 
books  and  homilies,  inside  out;  old  things  indeed 
must  pass  away,  and  a// things  become  new.^ 

The  reader  may  now  understand  in  what  sense 
the  merits  of  Christ  have  any  share  in  our  Justifica- 
tion. He  reads  in  Oxford  writings  that  while  it  is  a 
righteousness  within  us,  by  which  we  are  justified, 
all,  nevertheless^  is  through  the  merits  of  Christ — the 
passion  of  Christ.  Now  if  he  supposes  that  by  this 
is  meant  any  thing  like  what  is  usually  meant  by 
such  language,  viz.  that  a  sinner  loohs  to  the  Atone- 
ment of  Christ  as  his  only  hope,  and  pleads^  and  in 
his  heart  relies  upon, Christ  crucified  as  the  sacrifice 
for  his  sins,  and  glories  or  rejoices  only  in  that  atoning 
sacrifice  for  all  peace  with  God,  he  is  exceedingly 
mistaken.  And  yet  undoubtedly  such  is  the  mean- 
ing in  which  this  divinity  is  taken  by  the  many  who 
suppose  it  is  only  different  from  the  common  faith, 
by  a  different  use  of  words.  That  we  are  not  mis- 
representing this  matter  will  be  obvious  to  the  reader, 
from  the  consideration  that  one  large  Tract,  by  these 
divines,  is  expressly  devoted  to  the  inculcation  of 
''Reserve  in  communicating  religious  knowledge''  in 
which  the  ''Necessity  of  bringing  forrvard  the  doctrine 

'The  same  doctrine  is  pressed,  by  the  same  Author,  in  the  Tract  on  Reserve, 
No.  80.  For  example — "  It  is  a  great  mistake  to  suppose  that  by  preaching  the 
Atonement,  we  are  preaching  what  St.  Paul  meant  when  he  said  *  ive  preach 
Christ  crucified.^  It  is  the  opposite  of  this  modern  notion  which  St.  Paul  always 
intends  by  it.  It  is  the  necessity  of  our  being  crucified  to  the  world,  it  is  our 
humiliation  together  with  him,  mortification  of  the  flesh,"  &c.  (p.  75.)  It  is 
difllcult  to  see  how  the  Apostles  could  have  been  charged  with  making-  void  the 
law,  through  faith,  and  encouraging  a  continuance  in  sin  that  grace  might 
abound,  if  this  was  all  they  meant  by  preaching  Christ  crucified.  Our  Oxford 
divines  do  not  seem  to  be  much  in  danger  of  sharing  in  that  reproach  of  the 
Apostles. 


83 


of  the  Atonement, without  reserve,  of  teaching  it  to 
the  impenitent  at  all,  or  even  to  any  but  those  who 
have  made  progress  in  grace  is  denied.  In  that  Tract, 
we  read  that: 

"  Fully  to  know  that  we  arc  saved  by  faith  in  Christ  only,  and 
not  by  any  works  of  our  own,  and  that  we  can  do  nothing,  except- 
ing by  the  grace  of  God,  is  a  great  secret,  the  knowledge  of  which 
can  only  be  obtained  by  obedience — as  the  crown  and  end  of  great 
holiness  of  life."*  "  In  all  things  it  would  appear  that  this  doctrine  (the 
Atonement)  instead  of  its  being  what  is  supposed,^  is  in  fact  the  very 
secret  *  of  the  Lord '  which  Solomon  says  is  with  the  righteous,'  &c. 

1  Tract  on  Reserve  (No.  80.)  p.  49.  Eng.  Ed. 

~  The  supposed  idea  is  learned  from  Tract  No.  73,  where  it  is  mentioned  as  a 
very  objectionable  feature  of"  the  popular  theology  of  the  day,"  that  it  considers 
that  the  Atonement  is  the  chief  doctrine  of  the  Gospel — that  on  this,  as  on  the 
horizontal  line  in  a  picture,  all  the  portions  of  the  Gospel  system  are  placed  and 
made  to  converge;  as  if  it  might  be  fearlessly  used  to  regulate,  adjust,  correct, 
complete  every  thing  else."  The  author  of  the  Tract  No.  80  considers  that  in 
the  days  of  the  Puritans  great  evils  arose  from  the  putting  forward  of  divine 
truths  "  without  that  sacred  reserve  "  which  he  has  been  urging.  "  The  conse- 
quence of  this  iiidelicate  exposure  of  religion  was  the  perpetration  of  crimes  al- 
most unequalled  in  the  annals  of  the  world."  That  is,  the  making  known  of 
tlie  Gospel — the  preaching  of  the  death  of  Christ  as  an  atonement  for  the  sins  of 
the  whole  world  ;  the  calling  of  sinners  to  flee  to  that  refuge  by  repentance  and 
faith  ;  to  seek  rest  only  in  the  Cross  of  Christ,  was  productive  of  all  this  ruin. 
What  will  it  be  when  the  Gospel  is  preached  to  every  creature  P  A  writer  of 
the  same  school,  reviewing  the  Tract  on  Reserve,  in  the  British  Critic,  now  in 
the  hands  of  the  Oxford  fellowship,  carries  on  the  strain  as  follows  :  "  How  very 
diflferent  this  sacred  reserve  from  the  manner  in  which  the  sacred  mystery  (the 
Atonement)  is  in  the  present  day,  pressed  forward  by  a  peculiar  school,  whether 
for  the  conversion  of  unbelievers,  or  for  winning  back  stray  souls  to  their  duty 
and  allegiance.  It  is  held  forth  and  touchingly  depicted  to  all  men  indiscrimi- 
nately. The  characteristics  of  its  full  reception  into  the  heart  of  any  individual, 
seem  to  be  an  entire  disclaiming  of  any  merit  or  desert  in  himself,  a  watchful 
jealousy  of  any  worth  or  importance  in  any  thing  he  can  do — a  casting  himself 
upon  Christ,"  &c.  Again  :  "  It  is  notorious  how  popular  books  of  the  day 
bring  forward  the  doctrine  of  the  Atonement,  and  press  it  in  every  rhetorical 
form,  as  the  great  instrument  for  the  conversion  of  the  careless  and  ill-living." 
— British  Critic  for  ^p.  1839.  If  Paul  did  not  preach  it  to  unconverted 
Jews  and  Greeks,  how  could  it  have  been  to  the  one  a  stumbling  block,  to  the 
other  foolishness  P 


84 


■—'the  hidden  manna'  which  he  will  give  to  those  who  overcome 
the  wo^ld.  To  require,  as  is  sometimes  done,  from  both  grown  per- 
sons and  children,  an  explicit  declaration  of  a  belief  in  the  Atone- 
ment, and  the  full  assurance  of  its  power,  appears  untenable.  If  a 
poor  woman,  ignorant  and  superstitious,  as  might  be  supposed,  was 
received  by  our  Lord,  by  so  instant  a  blessing,  for  touching  the  bor- 
der of  his  clothes,  (what  a  perversion  !  Was  it  for  touching  his 
clothes,  or  for  knowing  and  believing  in  him  ?)  may  it  not  have  been 
the  case  that  in  times,  which  are  now  considered  dark  and  lost  to 
Gospel  truth,  there  might  have  been  many  such?  That  there  might 
have  been  many  a  helpless  person,  who  knelt  to  a  crucifix  in  a 
churchyard,  who  might  have  done  so  under  a  more  true  sense  of 
that  faith  which  is  unto  life,  than  those  who  are  able  to  express  the 
most  enlightened  knowledge."^ 

Now  from  the  above  it  is  manifest  that  there  may 
be  a  true  sense  of  a  living  faith,  where  an  explicit  be- 
lief in  the  Atonement  of  Christ  is  not  to  be  required 
or  expected.  It  is  manifest  that  an  adult  is  supposed 
to  be  a  true  Christian,  a  true  believer,  feeling,  enjoy- 
ing, displaying  the  power  of  a  living,  justifying  faith, 
to  whom  the  Atonement  is  not  only  not  the  promi- 
nent object  of  his  faith,  the  single  foundation  of  his 
hope,  the  great  argument  with  God  in  his  prayers, 
the  only  source  whence  he  expects  any  merit  before 
his  Judge,  but  to  whom  it  is  so  unknown,  that  to  ex- 
pect of  him  enough  knowledge  of  it,  to  be  able  to 
profess  a  belief  in  it,  would  be  too  great  a  trial  of  his 
faith — to  bow  down  before  a  crucifix,  ig7iorant  of  the 
great  doctrine  of  which  it  is  the  symbol,  is  evidence 
of  enough  knowledge  to  be  the  basis  of  a  saving 
faith.  And  this  supposed  case  of  the  worshiper 
of  the  crucifix,  ignorant  of  any  doctrine  symbolized 
thereby,  is  not  given  as  an  extraordinary  case,  but  as 


»  Tract  on  Reserve,  Eng.  Ed.  p.  76—78 


85 


an  illustration  of  the  general  principle  that  we  are  not 
to  expect  of  adults,  in  order  that  they  may  have  a 
saving  faith,  an  explicit  profession  of  faith  in  the 
Atonement.  Who  now  are  hastening  to  the  very 
gulf  of  Unitarianism  ?  It  is  not  the  divinity  of  Christ 
that  Unitarians  chiefly  aim  at,  but  his  Atonement. 
Suffer  them  to  be  possessors  of  a  saving  faith,  while 
having  no  reference  to  that  doctrine,  and  their  zeal 
against  its  foundation  in  the  Divinity  of  Christ  will 
die  away. 

Now^  let  the  reader  judge,  how  much  is  meant  by 
the  expressions  of  these  divines,  as  to  all  Justifica- 
tion, &c.,  coming  through  the  passion  of  Christ. 
The  knowledge  of  his  atonement,  a  looking  to  that 
atonement,  a  reliance  upon  that  atonement,  as  all 
ones  hope  and  peace,  has  nothing  to  do  with  it.  It  is 
like  the  Romish  sacrifice  of  Mass,  which  is  effectual 
whether  any  but  the  sacrificing  Priest  unite  in  it, 
or  not.  The  merits  of  Christ  are  applied  to  the  sin- 
ner, according  to  this  new  way,  without  any  know- 
ledge or  application  on  his  part,  except  as  he  comes 
to  the  sacraments,  or  uses  other  "  sacred  symbols," 
-and  '^effectual  signs  of  grace."  And  this  application 
consists  in  the  communication  of  inherent  righteous- 
ness, so  that  we  are  justified,  not  by  the  merits  of 
Christ,  but  by  an  inherent  holiness  of  our  own, 
which  is  given  for  his  sake.  All  this  explains  the 
manifest  favour  with  which  the  Tracts  look  upon 
the  superstitious  profaneness  of  administering  the 
Lord's  supper  "  to  infants,  or  to  the  dying  and  appa- 
rently insensible,^''  which  we  read  is  not  without  the 
sanction  of  primitive  usage, "^  and  of  course,  there- 


'  Pusey's  Views  of  Baptism,  p.  5.  Am.  Ed. 


86 

fore,  the  reverent  submission  of  the  Authors.  If  a 
person  can  believe  in  Christ  crucified,  with  a  living, 
justifying  faitli,  without  an  explicit  belief  in  the 
atonement  of  Christ,  then  he  can  take  the  Lord's 
supper  in  remembrance  of  the  death  of  Christ,  while 
incapable  of  any  remembrance  of  any  thing. 

The  doctrine  of  explicit  faith,  as  distinguished 
from  implicit,  in  the  Church  of  Rome,  will  help  the 
reader  here.  In  Aquinas  we  read,  that  some  things 
are  objects  of  belief,  per  se,  essentially,  and  these, 
therefore,  are  Articles  of  Faith,  and  must  be  believed 
with  an  explicit  faith.  Others  are  objects  of  faith 
only  per  accidens,  or  in  a  secondary  sense ;  as,  for 
instance,  that  Abraham  had  two  sons.  Such  need 
be  believed  only  implicitly ;  that  is  in  a  preparation 
of  mind  to  receive  what  scripture  contains.  In  pre- 
paratione  animi,  in  quantum  paratus  est  credere  quic- 
quid  divina  scriptiira  continet.  Such  faith  requires  no 
knowledo'e  of  that  which  is  said  to  be  thus  believed, 
but  only  a  readiness  to  receive  it  when  made  known. 

All  are  not  bound  equally  to  have  an  explicit  faith. 
Teachers  of  religion  are  bound  to  have  more  than 
others — ad  quos  pertinet  alios  erudire,  tenentur  magis 
explicite  credere,^ 

The  Incarnation  and  the  Trinity  are  the  only  doc- 
trines which  Aquinas  speaks  of  as  requiring  explicit 
faith. 

Now,  as  explicit  faith,  in  the  doctrine  of  the  atone- 
ment, according  to  Oxford  Divinity,  is  not  to  be 
required  of  an  adult,  but  one  may  have  a  strong 
influential  faith,  who  believes  therein  only,  because 
believing  the  Scriptures  or  the  Church  in  general, 


'  Aquinas  Summa  P.  1.  Q.  2.  A,  5. 


87 


he  is  prepared  to  believe  whatever  they  teach,  though 
he  never  have  heard  of  it ;  it  follows  that  the  atone- 
ment is  not  strictly  an  article  of  faith,  but  a  secon- 
dary matter ;  not  an  object  of  faith  per  se,  but  per 
accidens,  like  such  a  truth  as  Aquinas  gives,  for  an 
example,  that  Abraham  had  two  sons.  Thus  indeed 
is  the  cross  out  of  si^ht,  except  as  v/e  set  up  its 
symbol  in  the  Church,  or  trace  it  with  our  finger 
upon  our  foreheads.    And  this  is  the  Gospel !  ! 

Again,  let  the  reader  distinctly  observe  and  esti- 
mate the  condition  into  which  this  7iew  way  neces- 
sarily casts  the  dearest  hope  of  the  penitent  and  be- 
lieving sinner. 

According  to  the  Scriptures,  when  one  is  "  justi- 
fied by  faith,"  he  has  peace  with  God."  In  this 
grace  (of  justification,)  he  rejoices  in  hope  of  the 
glory  of  God."  It  is  manifest,  that  the  Scripture 
not  only  represents  a  very  joyful  assurance  of  salva- 
tion as  attainable  by  all  Christians,  but  as  the 
bounden  duty  of  all,  when  it  tells  us  so  frequently 
that  the  saints  in  this  life,  have  known  their  justifica- 
tion and  future  salvation;  when  it  declares,  that 
whosoever  belie veth  in  Christ,  hath  everlasting 
life;"  which  it  would  be  vain  to  declare,  if  we  can- 
not know  ourselves  to  be  believers  or  not ;  when  it 
bids  us  to  examine  ourselves,  prove,  know  ourselves^ 
whether  we  be  in  faith ;  when  it  speaks  of  the  hap- 
piness of  the  man  unto  whom  the  Lord  imputeth  na 
sin;  when  it  makes  the  knowledge  of  peace,  in  the 
shape  of  hope,  the  anchor  of  the  soul,  the  helmet  of 
the  head  in  storm  and  battle ;  when  it  requires  us 
to  rejoice  in  the  Lord  always ;  to  love  and  haste  unto 
the  appearing  of  our  Lord. 


S8 


But  where  is  the  possibility  of  all  this,  if,  accord- 
ing to  this  scheme,  our  Justification  be  dependent  on 
our  own  inwrought  righteousness.  Let  us  see ! 
Justification  ^Jid  peace  with  God  are  essentially  con- 
nected in  Rom.  v.  1 :  "  Being  jus  tijied — we  have  peace 
with  God.''  But,  says  Mr.  Newman,  Justification 
consists  in  a  righteousness  dwelling  in  us,  and  that 
''righteousness  is  acceptahlenessP  But  this  accepta- 
bleness,  it  is  said,  may  be  more  or  less.  Of  course, 
then,  we  may  be  more  or  less  justified,  and  so  more 
or  less  at  peace  with  God.  In  the  same  degree, 
(says  Mr.  Newman,)  that  faith  or  obedience  grows, 
so  does  Justification.  On  the  other  hand,  those  who 
are  declining  in  their  obedience — as  they  are  quench- 
ing the  light  within,  so  are  they  diminishing  their 
justification,"^  and,  of  course,  so  are  they  decreasing 
in  peace  with  God, 

Now  in  what  way  is  a  poor  sinner,  working  out 
his  salvation,  ever  to  know  whether  he  has  peace 
with  God,  and  may  rejoice  in  hope,  or  not?  He  can 
have  peace  only  so  far  as  he  is  justified.  And  ac- 
cording to  this  doctrine,  some  are  more  justified  than 
others;  the  same  person  ai  various  periods,  may  be 
in  various  stages  of  justification.  He  asks  for  the 
line  or  mark  of  justification  so  that  when  beneath  it, 
he  may  know  that  he  is  not  sufficiently  justified  to 
have  peace  with  God,  and  when  above  it,  may  know 
that  he  is  justified  enough  to  have  peace  with  God. 
No  such  line  is  pretended  to.  Then,  whether  he  is 
at  peace  with  God,  or  under  his  wrath,  for  there  is 
no  medium,  he  can  never  know.  Where  then  is  the 


I  Newman,  pp.  168,  169. 


89 


helmet  of  hope,  that  strong  consolation"  for  him 
who  has  fled  for  refuge  to  Christ?  The  *'hope  that 
maketh  not  ashamed,"  the  confidence  that  when 
Christ  shall  appear,  he  shall  be  like  him,  and  see 
him  as  he  is? 

Now  w^hat  is  the  natural  consequence  of  such  a 
miserable,  comfortless  doctrine  as  this,  this  ''feeding 
us  on  husks  and  shells "A  man  who  can  never 
know  whether  his  amount  of  Inherent  Righteous- 
ness is  sufficient,  will  always  be  excogitating  some 
device  or  other  by  which  God  may  be  the  more  ef- 
fectually propitiated  and  satisfied.  A  gloomy,  or  a 
poverty-stricken  aspirant  resorts  to  those  unbidden 
austerities  and  severe  bodily  macerations,  by  which 
it  is  fully  hoped  that  sins  may  be  expiated  and  hea- 
ven meritoriously  attained."  In  such  righteousness 
there  is  something  that  seems  tangible,  measurable, 
appreciable.  A  man  can  count  his  penances,  mea- 
sure his  pilgrimages,  weigh  his  gifts,  and  thus  keep 
account  of  his  righteousness,  and  at  last  come  to  ac- 
count himself  sufficiently  righteous  to  be  at  peace 
with  God.  Sinners  of  various  descriptions  will  re- 
sort to  different  modes  of  establishing  such  a  righte- 
ousness; the  rich  will  purchase  what  they  are  not 
willing  to  work  out,  by  the  prayers  of  priests  and 
the  merits  of  saints,  and  the  virtue  of  indulgences, 
to  save  themselves  the  pain  of  austerities.  Thus, 
will  arise  the  monster  of  Supererogatory  Merit.  And 
so  there  growls  out  of  the  mere  effort  of  the  troubled 
conscience  to  supply  the  awful  uncertainty  arising 
from  a  scheme  of  justification,  which  knows  nothing 
better  for  righteousness,  than  our  own  works  and 
personal  holiness,  that  whole  retinue  of  vain  devices 

12 


90 


for  the  making  of  a  righteousness  of  our  own  and 
easing  the  conscience  with  nostrums  of  man's  quack- 
ery, by  which  the  Church  of  Rome  has  been  for  so 
many  centuries  so  defiled,  and  degraded.^ 

The  direct  tendency,  to  precisely  such  results,  is 
manifest  already  in  Oxford  Divinity.  'Nothing  is 
more  evident,  than  that  precisely  the  state  of  uncer- 
tainty about  one's  actual  peace  with  God,  which  we 
have  described,  is  inculcated  there  as  a  matter  of 
duty.  Any  thing  like  a  ''joy  of  hope,"  a  ''strong 
consolation,"  a  confidence  of  peace  is  sternly  repu- 
diated as  presumption  and  Ultra-Protestantism.. 

Thus  Dr.  Pusey  condemns,  with  all  severity,  the 
views  of  those  who  believe  that,  "  when  men  have 
once  been  brought  '  to  lay  hold  of  Christ's  saving 
merits,'  then  their  sins  are  done  aw^ay ;  they  '  are 
covered they  can  appear  no  more;  the  hand-writing 
is  blotted;  who  believe  that  this  apprehension  of 
Christ's  merits  is  a  full  remission  of  sins  ;  and  that, 
after  they  have  laid  hold  on  Christ  by  faith,  and  so 
have  their  sins  forgiven,  "  to  seek  to  efface  it  by  re- 
pentance, is  weakness  of  faith ;  to  do  acts  of  mercy, 
or  self-denial,  or  self-abasement,  or  to  fast  with  refer- 
ence to  it,  is  to  place  repentance  instead  of  Christ." 
This  is  what  Dr.  Pusey  considers  worse  than  Ro- 
mish indulgences,  just  because  it  does  give  what 
the  Gospel  calls  us  to,  "a  strong  consolation,"  to 
the  believer,  instead  of  "the  bitterness  of  the  an- 
cient medicine,"  (of  penance  and  austerity,)  and 
by  what  he  calls  "  an  artificial,  wrought-up  peace, 
checks  the  deep  and  searching  agony,  whereby  God, 


•  See  Faber's  Primitive  Doctrine  of  Justification,  c.  v. 


91 


as  in  a  furnace  of  fire,  purifies  the  whole  man  by  the 
spirit  of  judgment,  and  the  spirit  of  burning — going 
counter  to  the  whole  tenor  of  Scripture,  that  every 
man  shall  be  judged  according  to  his  works." 

We  cannot  leave  this  view  of  the  painful  uncer- 
tainty under  which  the  doctrine  of  the  scheme  under 
consideration,  shrouds  in  gloom  the  dearest  hopes  of 
the  humble  believer,  without  refreshing  the  mind 
of  the  devout  reader,  after  ail  the  desert-ground  we 
have  been  walking  over,  with  the  following  excellent 
passage  from  Mr.  Faber,  on  the  Primitive  Doctrine 
of  Justification. 

"  If  we  adopt  the  system  recommended  to  us  by  these  authorities, 
ancient  and  modern,  (the  ancient  Fathers  and  the  standards  of  the 
Church  of  England,)  the  modern  being  swelled  by  the  assent  of  the 
various  Reformed  Churches  of  the  Continent,  we  shall  encounter 
no  imperious  and  perplexing  requisition  to  draw  a  line  between  suf- 
ficiency and  insufficiency  ;  for  in  that  case  we  shall  build  our  Jus- 
tification, not  upon  the  ever  shifting  sands  of  man's  Imperfect  and 
Inherent  Righteousness,  but  upon  the  inmnovable  rock  and  absolute, 
cubical  unity  of  the  Perfect  and  Finished  Righteousness  of  Christ, 
Thus  freely  justified  through  an  imputation  to  us  of  faith,  (the  righte- 
ousrj^ss  of  Christ  by  faith,)  instead  of  any  righteousness  of  our  own; 
henceforth,  by  the  Sanctification  of  the  Spirit,  we  sedulously  work 
and  abound,  not  for  Justification,  but  from  Justification.  Our  ef- 
forts therefore,  through  grace,  to  advance  in  every  good  thought  and 
word  and  work,  perfecting  holiness  in  the  fear  of  God,  are  the  wil- 
ling and  grateful  exertions  of  sons  anxiously  desirous  to  please  a 
reconciled  and  most  merciful  father,  not  the  reluctant  and  con- 
strained and  grudging  labours  of  slaves,  fearful  lest  any  slackness 
in  their  hated  task  should  call  forth  the  lash  of  an  exacting  and  un- 
relenting master.  Erecting  our  edifice  on  this  sure  foundation  of 
Christ's  Righteousness ;  and  knowing  that  there  is  therefore  no  con- 
demnation to  them  who  are  in  Christ  Jesus,  v/ho  walk  not  after  the 
flesh,  but  after  the  Spirit;  perfect,  confiding  love  casting  out  all  that 
slavish  fear,  which  in  the  very  nature  of  things,  cannot  but  attend 


92 

upon  the  Romish  system,  (the  Oxford  system,) ;  we  have  peace 
with  God,  being  justified  through  faith — and  we  thankfully  experi- 
ence the  blessedness  of  those,  to  whom  the  Lord  will  not  impute 
sin,  inasmuch  as  their  iniquities  are  forgiven,  and  their  sins  are 
covered."^ 

Before  we  conclude  the  Chapter  and  proceed  to  the 
comparison  of  Romanism,  there  is  one  main  point 
which  must  be  set  out  with  special  distinctness,  and 
be  made  to  stand  foremost  in  the  reader's  mind. 

We  have  treated  the  Oxford  doctrine  of  Justifica- 
tion by  a  righteousness  within  us,  as  contradistin- 
guished from  a  righteousness  external  and  imputed, 
as  being  neither  more  nor  less  than  Justification  by 
inherent  righteousness,  or  Sanctification.  And  we 
doubt  not  that,  to  the  reader  whose  only  knowledge 
of  the  writings  of  Mr.  Newman  and  Dr.  Pusey,  &c., 
has  been  derived  from  the  citations  we  have  given, 
the  idea  has  not  occurred  that  such  identity  could 
gravely  be  questioned.  But  let  him  remember  that 
if  this  be  granted,  the  essential  Romanism  of  their 
Divinity,  on  this  main  doctrine  of  the  Reformation, 
is  also  granted.  Justification  by  inherent  righteous- 
ness or  Sanctification  is  the  grand  distinguislnng 
feature  of  Romanism,  in  regard  to  "the  nature  and 
essence  of  the  medicine  whereby  Christ  cureth  our 
disease."  Can  it  then  be  expected  that  such  a  point  of 
resemblance  between  them  and  Rome  could  be  given 
up,  without  at  least  an  attempt  at  some  different 
showing?  Would  it  not  be  a  silly  thing  indeed  for 
Dr.  Pusey  to  publish  a  work  for  the  very  purpose  of 
vindicating  his  system  from  the  charge  of  Romanism, 
and  yet  acknowledge,  or  not  expressly  deny,  that  it 


'  Faber's  Prim.  Doc.  of  Justif.,  p.  211. 


93 

contains  that  which  Hooker,  &c.,  make  the  very  sonl 
of  Romanism  ?  Of  course  he  denies  it,  and  attempts 
to  make  out  such  distinctions  between  their  indwell- 
ing righteousness  and  what,  in  all  theology,  is  called 
Sanctification,  as  will  enable  them  to  hold  to  the  for- 
mer, without  feeling  convicted  of  going  back  to  Rome ; 
and  unquestionably,  whatever  we  may  think  of  the 
reality  of  those  dictinctions,  we  in  charity  believe  that 
they  think  them  good.  But  whether  the  distinctions 
be  real  or  fictitious,  it  is  our  duty  to  judge  for  our- 
selves, and  to  decide  upon  the  doctrine  accordingly, 
without  regard  to  the  unsupported  assertions  of  its 
advocates.  A  man  may  teach  Socinianism,  and  deny 
that  it  is  Socinianism.  We  must  not  take  his  word 
except  for  the  fact  that  such  is  his  opinion.  A  man 
may  concoct  a  poison  and  deny  that  it  is  poison,  and 
by  mixing  it  with  ingredients  foreign  to,  and  con- 
tradictive  of,  its  natural  properties,  may  take  it  him- 
self, without  death ;  but  we  must  judge  of  its  legiti- 
mate tendency,  neither  by  his  assertion,  nor  his  foreign 
admixture,  nor  its  effects  upon  him,  but  by  its  own 
properties.  We  have  a  good  example  of  this  in  these 
divines  themselves.  They  will  by  no  means  receive 
the  assertions  of  those  whom  they  call  Ultra  Pro- 
testants" as  to  whether  their  system  involves  this  or 
that  evil  consequence.  What  is  good  in  them  per- 
sonally, or  the  ministry  they  maintain,  is  in  spite  of 
their  system.  We  must  be  excused  then  for  main- 
taining that,  if  there  be  any  expressions  or  inferences, 
or  practical  effects,  in  the  works  of  these  writers  in 
their  Christian  views  and  hopes,  which  are  better 
than  what  would  naturally  and  directly  issue  as  the 
fruit  of  their  doctrine,  (and  we  know  there  is  much, 


94 

and  strange  would  it  be,  were  there  not)  it  only  proves 
that  they  are  better  than  their  system;  that  the  seed 
of  truth  within  them  has  its  growth,  as  well  as  the 
seed  of  error,  the  wheat  as  well  as  the  tare.  To  use 
the  words  of  Dr.  Pusey :  The  tendencies  are  doubt- 
less checked  in  individuals;  but  whatever  checks 
there  are,  are  the  result  of  past  duty,  of  an  implanted 
integrity,  of  God's  law^  within  them,  in  despite  of 
their  system.  Their  tendency  is  to  act  upon  a  theory, 
not  upon  Scripture. ''^  The  same  language  we  may 
use  of  many  Romanists,  Socinians,  Antinomians,  as 
well  as  many  who  are  less  astray — and  the  same  we 
must  use  in  regard  to  those  whom  Dr.  Pusey  repre- 
sents. 

Now  for  the  distinction  contended  for,  as  the  line 
of  demarcation  between  the  Justification  of  Roman- 
ism, and  that  of  Oxford  Divinity. 

Dr.  Pusey  expressly  declares  that  he  and  those 
who  bear  him  company  do  exclude  Sanctijication 
from  having  any  place  in  our  Justification r  Where 
the  line  runs,  or  what  it  is,  he  does  not  say.  But  he 
does  tell  us,  with  singular  contradiction,  that  ''the 
state  of  Justification  admits  of  degrees  according  to 
the  degree  of  Sanctification^ 

Mr.  Newman  maintains  the  same  denial. 

"  This  is  really  and  truly  our  Justification,  not  faith, not  holiness, 
not  (much  less)  a  mere  imputation ;  but  the  very  presence  of 
Christ,"^  "  not  faith,  not  renovation,  not  obedience,  not  any  thing 
cognizable  by  man,  but  a  certain  divine  gift  in  which  all  these  quali- 
fications are  included."'*  "  Scripture  expressly  declares  that  righte- 
ousness is  a  divine  inward  gift,  while  at  the  same  time  it  teaches  that 


>  Letter,  p.  48. 
4  lb.  p.  159. 


-  Letter,  p.  54. 


3  Lectures  on  Justif.  p.  167. 


95. 


it  is  not  any  mere  quality  of  mind,  whether  faith  or  holiness."* 
Justification  is  "  not  renewal  or  the  jjrinciple  of  renewal."^  "  The 
Apostle  goes  on  to  say  that  the  only  true  Justification  is  the  being 
made  holy  or  renewed ;  does  not  this  imply  from  the  very  nature  of 
the  case  that  renewal  was  not  just  the  same  thing  as  Justification. 
(The  implication  is  beyond  our  ken.  But  again) :  "  If  the  justify- 
ing word  be  attended  by  the  spiritual  entrance  of  Christ  into  the 
soul,  justification  is  perfectly  distinct  from  renewal,  with  which 
Romanists  identify  it.""* 

Now  the  question  of  iHe  astonished  reader  must 
be,  where,  in  the  name  of  all  Scriptural  and  Protest- 
ant, and  common-sense,  divinity,  is  the  distinction 
aimed  at — a  distinction  between  Justification,  as  be- 
ing made  liolij,  or  renewed,  and  Justification  as  being 
holiness  and  renewal?  between  righteousness  as  being 
in  us  and  being  a  quality  of  usl  All  the  answer  of 
Mr.  Newman  is  found  in  the  following  extracts 
which  the  reader  will  understand  if  he  can. 

"  If  we  say  that  Justification  consists  in  a  supernatural  quality  im- 
parled to  the  soul  by  God's  grace,  as  the  Romanists  say,^  then  in 
like  manner  the  question  arises,  is  this  quality  all  that  is  in  us  of 
heaven  ?  does  not  the  grace  itself,  as  an  immediate  divine  power  or 
presence,  dwell  in  the  hearts  which  are  gifted  with  this  renovating 
principle?  It  may  or  it  may  not;  but  if  it  does,  then  surely  its 
possession  is  really  our  Justification  and  not  renewal  or  the  principle 
of  renewal."^ 


I  Lectures  on  Justif.  p.  154.  2  p.  151.  3  p.  76.  4  p.  170. 

5  Mr.  Newman  is  wrong  if  he  means  that  it  is  part  of  the  established  and 
enjoined  creed  of  Romanism  that  it  "consists  in  a  supernatural  quality  im- 
parted to  the  soul."  Romanists  are  as  subtle  and  wary  in  distinctions  as  our 
Oxford  divines.  Mr.  JYeivman  got  his  distinction  from  them,  as  we  shall  see. 
We  read  in  Tract  No.  71,  that  in  Romanism  "It  is  de fide  that  man  is  justified 
by  inherent  righteousness;  it  is  not  de  fide  that  justifying  righteousness  is  a 
habit  or  quality"  see  p.  22  of  American  Edition.  What  the  author  of  the 
Tract  means  by  saying  that  he  does  not  deny  the  reality  of  the  distinction  and 
that  it  may  be  properly  insisted  oii,  but  does  deny  that  it  exists  in  the  particular 
case,  (p.  21)  passes  understanding.  ^Lectures,  p.  150,  151. 


96 


Here  then  is  the  attempted  distinction.  Some- 
thing there  is,  called  ''grace,"  which  is  supposed  to 
dwell  in  the  heart,  and  which  worlds  holiness,  but  is  not 
holiness ;  it  is  holy,  but  not  holiness.  It  is  "  the  pre- 
sence of  the  Holy  Ghost  shed  abroad  in  our  hearts,  the 
Author  both  of  faith  and  of  renewal.  This  is  really 
that  which  makes  us  righteous  (or  justifies  us)  and 
our  righteousness  is  the  jjossession  of  that  presence '^"^ 

So  then  the  possession  of  the  presence  of  the  Holy 
Ghost — the  simple  presence,  irrespective  of  effects 
upon  our  hearts,  is  our  Justification.  But  as  faith 
and  spiritual  renovation  are  said  to  be  ^fruits  of  that 
presence,"^  if  Justification  be  that  presence,  faith 
must  follorv  after  Justification,  while  St.  Paul  says 
we  are  ''Justified  by  faith." 

But  we  have  this  distinction  differently  expressed. 

"The  righteousness  on  which  we  are  called  righteous,  or  are  jus- 
tified, that  in  which  justification  results  or  consists — this  Justifying 
principle,  though  within  us  as  it  must  be,  if  it  is  to  separate  us  from 
the  world,  yet  is  not  of  us,  or  in  us,  not  any  quality  or  act  of  our 
minds,  not  faith,  not  renovation,  not  obedience,  not  any  thing  cog- 
nizible  by  man,  but  a  certain  divine  gift  in  which  all  these  qualifica- 
tions are  included."^ 

Now  let  us  mark!  This  "divine  presence'''  by 
which  we  are  justified,  viz  :  "  the  habitation  in  us  of 
God  the  Father,  and  the  Word  incarnate  through  the 
Holy  Ghost"  is  a  righteousness  it  is  also  a  ''prin- 
ciple f  (the  divine  presence  a  principle!)  this  pre- 
sence is  also  a  gift.  '  This  righteousness,  or  prin- 
ciple, or  gift,  is  WITHIN  us,  avithin  our  hearts,  our 
minds,  our  affections,  yet  is  not  of  us;  is  not  in  us ; 
is  not  in  our  hearts  and  minds  and  affections.    It  is 


•Lectures,  p.  150,  151.  2p.  151.  3 p.  159. 


97 


our  righteousness,  a  principle,  a  possession  and  gift 
of  our  minds,  and  yet  ''not  any  quality  or  act  of  our 
minds''  It  is  not  the  qualities  of  faith,  renovation, 
obedience,  but  something  which  includes  them  all  as 
the  qualities  of  which  that  gift  is  the  occult  essence. 

Such  is  the  strongest  exhibition  of  the  whole  mid- 
dle wall  of  partition  on  which  Oxford  divinity  relies 
for  the  separation  of  its  doctrine  of  Justification  from 
that  of  Romanism,  hy  inherent  righteousness  or  Sanc- 
tification,  "O  this  sad,  misty  divinity  (as  Coleridge 
said  of  some  in  Donne)  far  too  scholastical  for  the 
pulpit,  far  too  vague  and  unphilosophic  for  the 
study." 

Now  we  have  no  intention  of  spending  any  time 
to  show  that  this  laborious  distinction  is  unscriptural, 
unreal,  mystical;  that  in  so  serious  a  matter,  it  is 
mere  trifling,  and  to  all  pretence  of  sober,  bibli- 
cal theology,  disgraceful.  It  speaks  for  itself  Sha- 
dowy as  it  is,  however,  and  vain ;  it  shows  to  what 
straits  these  divines  are  driven  if  they  would  even 
seem  to  keep  clear  of  the  downright  charge  of  Pope- 
ry ;  and,  in  our  next  chapter,  it  will  be  shown  how 
entirely,  by  the  very  using  of  this  attempted  distinc- 
tion, which  is  no  other  than  an  old  device  of  scholas- 
tic Romanism,  their  doctrine  is  identified  with  that 
of  Popery.  When  sick  nien  begin  to  pick  at  the  air, 
it  is  a  mournful  evidence  that  siorht  is  failinj^,  and  the 
darkness  of  death  is  at  hand.  We  could  hardly  have 
a  stronger  proof  of  how  near  these  writers  have  gone 
to  Rome  than  that  the  only  separation  they  can  find, 
in  regard  to  the  great  subject  before  us,  is  in  this 
wall  of  interposing  mistiness.  Mr.  Knox,  with  a  simi- 
lar approximation,  was  sensible  of  precisely  the  same 

13 


98 


necessity,  of  finding  out  some  such  distinction.  With 
less  scholastic  subtlety,  if  he  has  not  used  precisely 
the  same  distinction,  he  has  at  least  expressed  one  more 
intelligibly,  and  is  surprised  that  all  do  not  see  its 
sufficiency.  In  reply  to  the  objection  that  to  sup- 
pose Justification  to  have  an  efficient,  as  well  di^repu- 
tative  sense,  is  to  confound  it  with  Sanctification,  he 
says  "This  is  a  wonderfully  common  idea.  But  I 
apprehend  that  it  rests  on  this  pure  mistake — that 
Sanctification  is  a  general  term  for  all  inherent  good- 
ness wrought  in  us  by  the  grace  of  Christ.  On  the 
contrary,  I  am  persuaded  it  is  a  distinctive  term  for 
goodness  grown  into,  or  growing  into  maturity.  And 
I  apprehend,  that  among  all  the  preliminary  know- 
ledge necessary  to  the  beneficial  reading  of  the  Scrip- 
ture, none  is  more  important  than  an  accurate  idea 
of  this  distinction  and  of  the  weight  attached  to  it." 
This  distinction  then  is  that  grace  in  infancy  is  Justi- 
fication; grace-adult,  or  approximating  thereto,  is  Sanc- 
tification. 

We  may  be  the  more  easily  acquitted  of  presump- 
tion in  so  unceremoniously  rejecting  all  distinction 
between  the  righteousness  in  which  Justification, 
according  to  Oxford  Divinity,  consists,  and  Sanctifi- 
cation, when  it  is  remembered  that  in  so  doing  we 
only  conform  to  what  Mr.  Newman  in  several  parts 
of  his  Lectures  asserts.  He  expressly  declares,  and 
he  considers  himself  to  have  proved,  as  has  been 
shown  before  on  page  66,  that  the  distinction  ordina- 
rily made  between  "two  kinds  of  righteousness," 
that  of  Justification  and  that  of  Renewal  or  Sanctifi- 
fication,  is     not  scripturaV — that  these  two  are 

really  onef'  that  there  is  but  one  righteousness. 


99 


Now  as  he  would  not  deny  that  sanctification  or  holi- 
ness is  a  righteousness,  his  righteousness  of  Justifica- 
tion must  be  that,  or  else  his  great  position  that  there 
is  only  righteousness  is  abandoned.  Again,  he  ex- 
pressly says  that  "Justification  and  Sanctification  are 
substantially  the  same  thing" — described,  in  Scrip- 
ture, as  parts  of  one  gift,  properties,  qualities  or  as- 
pects of  one."  ^ 

Thus  Justification  is  sometimes  called  a  quality, 
sometimes  denied  to  be  a  quality;  sometimes  the^ro- 
perty  of  a  divine  gift,"  and  then  the  gift  itself  and 
none  of  its  properties,  but  including  them  all.  The 
reader  must  unravel  the  maze  for  himself 

Again,  the  ''real  identity,  in  matter  of  fact,  between 
Sanctification  and  Justification,  liowever  we  may  vary 
our  terms,  or  classify  our  ideas,''  is  positively  asserted.^ 
Justification  and  Renewal"  are  said  to  be  ''converti- 
ble terms''^  Justification  is  described  as  "coming  to 
us  through  our  sanctified  wills  and  doings;  as  wr ought 
out  for  us  by  the  power  of  God,  actively  employed 
within  us,""*  and  may  be  viewed  as  consisting  in  evan- 
gelical obedience,'"'  and  "will  stand  either  for  imputa- 
tion or  for  Sanctification''"^  Perhaps  no  stronger  ex- 
pression of  the  real  identity  of  these  two  names,  in 
Oxford  Divinity,  could  be  given  than  Mr.  Newman's 
assertion  that  we  become  inwardly  just  or  righteous 
in  God's  sight  (i.  e.  we  are  justified)  upon  our  regene- 
ration, in  the  same  sense  in  which  we  are  utterly  re- 
probate and  abominable  by  nature."^  Now  we  sup- 
pose it  will  not  be  denied  that  our  natural  unrighte- 


'  Lectures,  p.  42,  67. 
*  P.  69.       5  p.  104. 


2  P.  68. 
6  P.  107. 


3  p.  69. 
'P.  96. 


100 


ousness  is  a  quality  of  our  minds,  inherent,  in  us  and 
of  us,  as  well  as  within  us,  not  a  something  which, 
while  it  includes  unholiness,  unbelief,  disobedience, 
is  not  any  or  all  of  them ;  of  course  then  our  super- 
natural righteousness,  according  to  the  above  asser- 
tion, must  be  a  quality  of  our  minds,  inherent,  &c.^ 

1  This  very  doctrine  is  no  other  than  what  was  broached  by  Osiander  in  the 
16th  century.  That  continental  theologian,  whose  niece  Archbishop  Cranmer 
married,  excited  much  controversy  among  the  reformed,  after  the  death  of  Lu- 
ther, by  his  peculiar  views  of  Justification.  So  far  as  the  present  writer  can 
see,  Osiander's  views  and  expressions  were  just  those  now  re-edited  at  Oxford. 
Mr.  Newman  indeed  disclaims  connection  with  Osiander,  because  the  latter 
maintained  that  "  the  Christian's  justifying  righteousness  is  the  essential  righte- 
ousness of  the  divine  nature  infused."  True,  there  is  much  language  in  Osian- 
der that  bears  this  interpretation,  but  so  there  is  in  Mr.  Newman.  And  if  in 
Mr.  N.  there  is  much  opposite  language,  as  if  our  justifying  righteousness  were 
regeneration^  renexval,  sanctijication,  or  the  personal  holiness  wrought  in  us 
by  the  Holy  Ghost,  there  is  quite  as  much  in  Osiander.  The  great  aversion  of 
the  latter  is  to  a  "  gratuitous  imputation  ;"  his  great  principle  is  that  we  are  jus- 
tified by  being  made  personally  righteous  ;  he  confounded  "  that  gift  of  acceptance 
with  regeneration,^  that  inward,  justify ing  sanctity,  he  speaks  of  as  consisting 
of  "the  inhabitation  of  Christ,"  in  respect  to  his  divine  nature,  and  he  main- 
tained a  difference  between  that  indwelling  righteousness  and  our  personal  holi- 
ness, at  the  same  time  that  he  often  spoke  of  them  as  convertible  terms.  The 
Reformers  indeed  understood  him  as  teaching  justification  by  the  communication 
to  us  o  f  tlte  essential  righteousness  of  the  divine  nature,  and  so  he  did,  and  so 
we  think  they  would  have  understood  Mr.  Newman  as  teaching.  But  Osiander 
did  not  teach  this  alone.  He  contradicted  himself,  just  as  mariners,  in  a  mist 
often  turn  around  insensibly  and  go  precisely  an  apposite  course.  He  taught 
also  justification  by  our  own  personal  holiness.  So  precisely  does  Mr.  N.  con- 
tradict himself.  The  latter,  when  he  says  that  our  justifying  principle  is  <•  the 
inhabitation  of  God  through  the  Spirit,"  is  involved  in  this  predicament, — he 
must  either  mean,  that  it  is  the  personal  holiness  which  that  blessed  Spirit 
works  in  us,  which  is  Sanctijication  ;  or  else  that  it  is  a  communication  of  the 
divine,  essential  holiriess,  to  us  ;  or  else  that  it  is  simply  a  presence  of  God 
within  us,  without  respect  to  any  communication,  influence,  effects.  But 
what  shall  we  say  oi  justi^ cation  by  a  presence!  What  is  "unreal,  abstract, 
visionary  righteousness,"  if  this  be  not?  Mr.  Newman  is  sometimes  upon  one 
of  these  alternates,  sometimes  another — sometimes  all  three  are  mixed  up  to- 
gether, literally  in  an  inextricable  fog,  the  mistified  mariner  turning  round  and 
round,  and  all  the  while  rowing  with  all  his  might  for  the  haven.    So  much  for 


101 


But  we  are  heartily  wearied  with  the  handling  of 
such  aerial  forms.  Can  it  be  necessary  to  say  that 
our  Church,  in  her  standards,  knows  but  one  inter- 
nal righteousness — and  that,  Sanctification — that  her 
standard  divines  know  no  more,  and  never  dreamed 
of  any  more?  Bishop  Barrow,  on  Justification,  has  a 
passage  which  looks  as  if  it  had  been  made  for  our 
present  use.  "  That  which  is  by  some  termed  making 
a  person  just,  infusion  into  his  soul  of  righteousness,  of 
grace,  of  virtuous  habits,  is  in  the  Scripture  style 
called  acting  hy  the  Spirit,  hestorving  the  gift  of  the 
Holy  Ghost,  renovation  of  the  Holy  Ghost,  creation 
to  good  ivorhs,  Sanctification  hj  the  Spirit''^  It 
need  not  be  declared  that  all  such  divines  as  Bever- 
idge.  Hall,  Andre wes,  Hooker,  &c.,  continually  use 
the  words  Sanctification,  Inherent  Righteousness,  In- 
dwelling Righteousness,  as  identical  expressions;  that 
the  only  other  Righteousness  they  know  is  the  exter- 

losing  sight  of  the  true  cross.  So  much  for  being  guided  by  a  cross  within  us, 
instead  of  a  cross  on  Calvary.  The  latter  is  always  fixed.  The  former  wan- 
ders as  we  wander.  There  is  all  the  difference  in  the  world  between  steering 
by  an  object  071  shore,  and  an  object  in  the  boat. 

The  writer  could  devise  no  better  refutation  of  Mr.  Newman  than  what  Cal- 
vin, in  his  Institutes,  has  in  refutation  of  Osiander. — B.  iii.  c.  xi.  §  v.  to  xiii. 
Said  Melancthon,  I  regard  Osiander's  dogma  as  no  mere  logomachy  or  strife 
of  words.  He  differs  from  our  churches  in  a  very  escntial  point,  and  obseures, 
or  rather  destroys  the  only  consolation  provided  for  distressed  consciences,  see- 
ing he  leads  us,  not  to  the  promise  of  mercy,  through  the  obedience  of  the  Me- 
diator, but  directs  us  to  another  object."  Osiander  holds  that  we  are  justified 
by  the  divinity  dwelling  in  us.  1'his  differs  little  from  the  doctrine  of  the  hea- 
then philosophers,  who  taught  that  man  attains  not  to  virtue  but  by  a  divine 
influence — (see  passage  from  Bishop  Andrcwes,  p.  102.)  Osiander,  in  effect, 
says,  that  we  are  justified  by  our  renovation  to  holiness.  We,  on  the  other 
hand,  while  we  admit  the  necessity  of  renovation,  hold  that  the  renewed  man 
is  justified  or  accepted  of  God  for  the  sake  of  Christ's  obedience." — Scott^s  con- 
tinuation  ofMilners  Ch.  Hist.  vol.  U.  pp.  115,  116. 

'  Barrow's  Works,  8vo.  vol.  iv.  p.  120. 


102 


7ial  and  imputed  Righteousness  of  Christ ;  that  a  ter- 
tium  quid^  a  something  between^  called  Righteous- 
ness, they  have  no  acquaintance  with.'^ 

We  fear  that  "  philosophy. falsely  so  called  "  has  had 
far  too  much  to  do  with  Oxford  Divinity;  philoso- 
phy such  as  Mr.  Knox  was  thinking  of  when  he  said, 
"I  greatly  suspect  that  the  time  is  not  very  distant 
when  even  Theological  Creeds  will  be  brought  to  a 
Philosophical  test,  and  be  discarded  should  they  not 
stand  the  trial. Bishop  Andrewes  says,  "The  phi- 
losophers themselves  conceived  and  acknowledged 
that  righteousness  which  is  a  quality  of  the  party ^ 
We  need  no  revelation  to  teach  us  that.  But  'Hhe 
other  (righteousness  by  imputation,  and  external) 
is  proper,"  says  the  good  Bishop, to  Christians  only, 
and  altogether  unlinown  in  FhilosophyP  "  Philo- 
sophy," said  Clement  of  Alexandria,  "  should  sub- 
mit itself  to  theology,  as  Agar  to  Sarah ;  should  al- 
low itself  to  be  advised ;  but  if  it  be  unwilling  to  be- 
come obedient,  cast  out  the  handmaid,.  "All  here- 
sies," said  Tertullian,  "  have  drawn  existence  from 
the  brains  of  philosophers.  They  affect  truth,  and 
in  affecting,  they  mar  it." 

1  Hooker  makes  a  distinction  between  what  he  calls  *'  two  kinds  of  sanctifying 
righteousness,  habitual  and  actual.  Habitual,  that  holiness  wherewith  our  souls 
are  inwardly  endued,  the  same  instant  when  first  we  begin  to  be  the  Temples 
of  the  Holy  Ghost;  actual,  that  holiness  which  afterwards  beautifieth  all  the 
parts  and  actions  of  our  life."  But  these  two  kinds  are  one  Sanctification, 
in  Hooker's  view — not  sanctification  and  $omethivg  else  also,  which  is  its  es- 
sence, and  not  itself.  *'  The  virtue  of  the  Spirit,  the  habitual  justice  which  is 
engrafted,"  he  opposes  to  the  "  external  justice  of  Jesus  Christ,  which  is  im- 
puted."  The  former,  however  divided  into  parts,  he  makes  to  be  neither  more 
nor  less  than  Inherent  righteousness,  or  Sanctification.  To  neither  does  he  as- 
sign any  part  in  Justification. — See  Discourse  of  Justif.  §  21.  For  Hooker's  and 
Beveridge's  account  of  the  "  two  kinds  of  righteousness  "  see  the  beginning  of 
this  chapter.  2  Remains,  vol.  1.  p.  315 — Bp.  Andrewes'  Sermons,  p.  724. 


103 


We  have  now  seen  that  great  improvement  in  the 
popular  theology  of  the  day;"  that  grand  reform  of 
Ultra-Protestantism  ;  that  high  tower  from  which  to 
defend  the  truth,  against  Rationalism,  on  the  one 
hand,  and  Romanism,  on  the  other;  that  Via  Media, 
which  is  now,  we  are  told,  being  rapidly  restored 
from  the  sad  dilapidations  under  which,  through  a 
Reformation  that  needs  reforming,  it  has  long  been 
suffering;  the  old  path  from  which  those  who  are 
'*  dreaming"  of  the  opposite,  hoping  to  be  justified  by 
''the  unreal  righteousness,"  the  ''abstract,  visionary, 
tyrannical,  usurping  system"  of  Hooker,  Andrewes, 
Beveridge,  &c.,  have  been  wandering  in  a  path  '*as 
ruinous,  to  men's  consciences,  as  the  indulgences  of 
Romanism."^ 

"We  must  be  excused  indeed.  We  are  far  behind 
this  new  march  of  intellect.  We  are  not  yet  prepar- 
ed for  this  Reformation.  We  have  been  believers 
too  long  in  a  path  washed  with  the  tears  and  crim- 
soned with  the  blood  of  the  Saints,  to  be  easily  mov- 
ed away  from  that  hope  of  the  gospel,  w^hich  we 
have  heard  from  a  long  line  of  noble  witnesses, 
reaching  up  to  the  first  day  of  the  Protest  of  the 
Church,  against  the  Roman  Anti-Christ :  that  bless- 
ed hope  which  was  preached  in  the  beginning  to 
every  creature,    whereof  Paul  was  made  a  minister." 

If,  as  these  modern,  retrograde  Reformers  declare,  the 
way  of  Justification  by  the  external,  imputed  righte- 
ousness of  Christ,  be  ''another  gospeV'^  to  them,  then 
it  follows  that  their  way  of  Justification  by  a  righte- 
ousness, not  external^  but  within  us  ;  not  Chrisfs  but 


I  Pusey,  p.  5G. 


'  Newman's  Iiectures.  p.  61. 


104 


ours  ;  not  imputed  or  accounted  to  us  by  faith  ;  but 
wrought  in  us  by  the  Spirit,  is  another  gospel  to  us. 
We  are  bound,  therefore,  with  regard  to  their  divin- 
ity, as  they  feel  bound  with  regard  to  ours,  by  that 
Apostolic  charge.  "Though  an  angel,  from  heaven, 
preach  unto  you  any  other  gospel,  than  that  ye  have 
received,  let  him  be  anathema."^ 

We  must  take  heed  :  there  may  be  much  restora- 
tion of  what  is  old,  in  this  system,  but  it  may  be  old 
error,  wearing  a  venerable  aspect  to  some,  because 
antiquated ;  and  speaking  words  of  wisdom  to  some, 
because,  like  the  prayers  of  some,  in  an  unknown 
tongue.  We  must  try  the  spirits.  Even  "angels of 
light"  must  not  be  received  as  Reformers,  without 
their  credentials.  The  Canaanite  is  yet  in  the  land. 
Romanism  is  working  hard  to  put  on  strength.  The 
Church  was  once  reformed  away  from  Rome,  by  the 
powers  of  light.  The  next  thing  attempted  will  be 
to  reform  her  back  to  Rome,  by  the  powers  of  dark- 
ness. Our  Protestant  Reformers,  were  at  first, 
Romish  Priests;  and  when  they  began  their  work, 
were  led  by  ways  they  knew  not  of,  and  to  an  ex- 
tent of  change,  which  they  did  not  at  first  contem- 
plate, and  would  not  at  first  have  dared  to  attempt. 
Our  next  Reformers  may  be  Protestant  Presbyters, 
reversing  the  work  of  the  others;  led,  as  they, 
though  by  another  hand,  in  ways  they  know  not 


'  Oxford  divinity  has  led  the  way  in  the  application  of  this  text.  In  a  late 
British  Critic,  (No.  53.)  we  find  it  said,  that  while  the  changes  in  the  Latin 
Church,  from  the  truth,  have  been  only  "objective  and  external ;"  that  made 
by  "  common  Protestantism  involves  a  radical  change  of  inward  principle, 
sufficiently  startling,  to  recall  with  unpleasant  sensations,  those  awful  words, 
'Though  wp  or  an  angel  from  heaven  preach,'  " 


105 


of,  to  an  extent  of  change,  which,  in  the  beginning, 
they  may  have  no  idea  of  seeking,  and  would  not 
have  conscience  to  undertake.  Reformation,  as  other 
things,  vires  acqidrit  eundo.  Reformers  learn  new 
ends,  by  attempting  to  discover  old  paths;  changes, 
once  begun,  have  a  wonderful  tendency  to  make  more 
advanced  ones  right,  and  expedient,  and  practicable, 
and  at  last  obligatory.  From  imputed  righteousness 
to  inherent,  for  Justification,  is  a  great  step;  but  once 
accomplished,  it  makes  many  others  easy.  It  would 
be  a  w^onderful  leap,  to  cross  at  once,  from  imputed 
righteousness  Xo  purgatory;  but  the  middle  ground  of 
inherent,  once  gained,  the  rest  is  soon  accomplished. 
From  the  righteousness  of  Christ  imputed  to  me,  to 
the  righteousness  of  Saints  imputed  to  me,  is  indeed 
a  great  gulf,  which  no  leap  of  reforming  agility  could 
cross  at  a  bound ;  but  the  half-way  position  of  man^s 
righteousness,  for  Justification,  takes  half  the  diffi- 
culty away,  so  that  under  a  sense  of  one's  need  of 
some  better  righteousness  than  his  own,  the  leap  of 
the  sinner  is  easy  into  the  midst  of  the  righteousness  of 

All  Saints,"  living  and  dead,  deposited  under  the 
keys  of  St.  Peter,  for  the  convenience  of  the  Church, 
and  the  henejit  of  the  system  of  Indulgences. 

''Consider  your  ways."  ''Ponder  the  path  of 
thy  feet."  This  Via  Media,  {qu.  Via  Appia?)  may 
be  an  old  path,  worn  deep  with  the  steps  of  pilgrims, 
who  have  travelled  far  and  toiled  hard,  and  dropped 
many  a  scalding  tear  over  the  doubtfulness  of  a  sal- 
vation which  laid  the  foundation  of  its  hopes  in  such 
righteousness,  as  they  felt  in  their  hearts,  after  all 
their  striving ;  and  yet  it  may  not  be  so  old  as  that 

14 


106 


Via  Stricta,^  that  narrow  way  that  leadeth  unto  life, 
of  which  the  Saviour  spoke,  in  which  one  walks  by 
faith,  the  way  of  peace,  to  the  world  "  foolishness," 
and  of  which  it  is  written :  "Few  there  be  that 
find  it." 

That  way  is  an  old  path  indeed :  for  Patriarchs, 
Prophets,  Apostles,  Martys,  and  Saints  of  all  ages 
have  walked  therein  and  found  it  a  way  of  holi- 
ness," as  well  as  of  joy  unspeakable."  At  the  same 
time  it  is  the  new  and  living  way  consecrated  for  us 
through  the  blood  of  Jesus;"  by  which  it  is  not  only 
our  privilege  but  our  duty  to  draw  near  to  God,  "  in 
full  assurance  of  faith,"  not  doubting  our  acceptance, 
but  confident  of  our  acceptance  if  we  come  with  a 
living  faith ;  not  fearing  lest  our  sins  should  be  too 
great  for  a  plenary  Justification,  but  honouring  the 
infinite  riches  of  divine  grace,  by  the  full  assurance 
that  whosoever  believeth  in  Jesus  hath  everlasting 
life,  and  his  precious  blood  cleanseth  him  from  all  sin. 


1  Matth.  vii.  14. 


CHAPTER  IV. 


THE  DOCTRINE  OF   OXFORD   DIV'IMTV,  AS  TO  THE  RIGHTEOUSNESS  OF 
JUSTIFICATION,  COMPARED  WITH  THAT  OF  THE  SCHOOLMEN. 

Origin  of  the  Romish  doctrine  of  Justification  in  the  self-righteousness  of  the 
human  heart — Advance  until  the  age  of  the  Schoolmen — The  origin  of 
Scholastic  Theology — Character  of  the  Schoolmen — Fitness  of  the  age  for 
the  rapid  growth  of  error — The  corruptions  of  Romanism  which  were  ma- 
tured in  that  age — The  seven  sacraments — Sacramental  Confession — Tran- 
substantiation — Half  Communion — Image  worship — Purgatory — Indulgen- 
ces— The  same  age,  as  was  to  be  expected,  gave  birth  to  the  Romish  doctrine 
of  Justification. — Connection  between  the  Schoolmen  and  the  divines  of 
Trent — Three  propositions  to  show  the  identity  of  the  doctrine  of  Oxfordism 
with  that  of  the  Schoolmen. — Similar  tendencies — Concluding  remarks — 
Note,  showing  the  resemblance  between  the  doctrine  of  Oxford,  and  that  of 
the  early  Quakers. 

Before  proceeding  to  a  direct  exhibition  of  the  doc- 
trine of  the  Romish  Church,  as  set  forth  in  mature 
growth,  and  in  solemn,  didactic  array,  in  the  Decrees 
of  the  Council  of  Trent,  we  will  pursue  a  course 
similar  to  that  by  which  we  arrived  at  the  doctrine 
of  the  Oxford  divines.  We  first  contemplated  that 
doctrine  in  rudiment,''  as  contained  in  Mr.  Knox; 
and  then  the  same  in  "  larger  development,''  in  the 
writings  of  its  present  chief  representatives  at  Ox- 
ford. 

The  real  origin  of  the  Romish  error  of  Justifica- 
tion, by  inherent  righteousness,  may  be  dated  as  far 
back  as  when  men  first  began  to  go  about  establishing 
their  own  righteousness,  not  submitting  themselves  to 
the  righteousness  of  God.  Like  the  system  of  the 
Gospel,  which  it  has  been  the  unceasing  aim  of  the 


108 


Adversary,  by  this  heresy,  to  subvert;  it  has  had  its 
various  dispensations.  Before  the  era  of  Christianity, 
it  wdiS  a  counterfeit  Judaism,  professing  the  righte- 
ousness of  God,  under  the  forms  of  the  Mosaic  ritual, 
but  relying  upon  the  righteousness  of  the  Scribes 
and  Pharisees,  under  a  yoke  of  traditions  which 
taught  for  doctrine  the  commandments  of  men,  and 
changed  the  truth  of  God  into  a  he,  and  the  power 
of  godUness  into  the  form  thereof;  full  of  pretence 
without,  but  within,  of  all  uncleanness. 

The  proneness  of  the  human  heart  to  depart  from 
the  righteousness  of  God,  was  not  eradicated,  nor 
was  the  malice  of  the  devil  satiated,  when  the 
Church  arose  from  out  of  the  shadows  of  the  Jewish 
dispensation,  and  shone  in  the  clearer  light  of  the 
Christian.  To  make  the  cross  of  Christ  of  none 
effect;  first,  by  making  it  foolishness  to  the  Greek, 
and  a  stumbling  block  to  the  Jew ;  and  then,  when 
men  would  embrace  it,  by  turning  it  into  an  idol, 
like  the  brazen  serpent  of  a  former  age;  so  that  men, 
retaining  the  name  of  Christ  upon  their  lips,  and 
making  the  sign  of  the  cross  upon  their  foreheads, 
might  be  substituting  a  foundation  of  wood  and  stub- 
ble, for  "Jesus  Christ  and  him  crucified;"  their  own 
cross,  for  his ;  an  inward  sacrifice,  for  the  one  obla- 
tion once  offered  by  the  Son  of  God ;  this  has  been 
the  grand  effort  of  Satan,  to  which  the  errors  and 
heresies  of  every  century  of  Christianity  bear  most 
impressive  testimony.  It  was  a  circumstance  favour- 
able to  the  covert  introduction  of  great  practical 
error,  in  regard  to  the  justification  of  the  sinner  be- 
fore God,  that  for  many  centuries  the  chief  points  of 
controversy  raised  in  the  Church,  while  connected. 


109 


in  a  very  important  sense,  with  whatever  related  to 
salvation,  were  calculated  rather  to  keep  the  eye  of 
careful  guardianship  away  from  the  precise  question 
of  justification,  by  the  excitement  they  created 
around  others  which  seemed  to  be  more  immediately 
endangered.  While  men  thus  slept,  came  the  Ad- 
versary, and  found  an  open  field  and  many  a  propi- 
tious soil,  into  which  to  sow  those  prolific  seeds  of 
self-righteous  doctrine,  which  early  sprang  up  in  the 
Platonic  soil  of  the  Alexandrian  divinity,  and  after- 
wards ripened  so  abundantly  during  what  are  most 
truly  called  the  ''dark  ages"  of  Christianity. 

But  as  yet,  there  was  no  publicly  professed  and 
general  creed,  embodying  w^hat  was  now  the  widely 
diffused  spirit  of  departure  from  ''the  righteousness 
of  God  by  faith."  It  w^as  an  active,  vigorous,  prac- 
tical principle,  appearing  under  a  thousand  forms, 
speaking  all  languages,  giving  life  to  a  rapidly  in- 
creasing and  multiplying  burden  of  formal  observ- 
ances, resisted  indeed  by  some  faithful  confessors  of 
the  truth,  and  not  yet  introduced  to  the  formal  dig- 
nity of  theological  profession,  nor  honoured  with 
any  scholastic  degree.^ 

But  a  new  dispensation  was  now  about  to  arise. 
About  the  year  1140,  the  form  of  doctrine  within  the 
bounds  of  the  Latin  Church,  began  to  be  greatly 
changed  by  the  profuse  admixture  of  human  tradi- 
tions and  philosophy. 


When  all  good  learning,  and  the  lessons  of  the  holy  Scripture,  were  drowned 
by  the  Goths  and  Vandals  in  Europe,  Asia,  and  Africa,  and  yet  somewhat 
rescued  and  taught  again  by  Charles  the  Great,  A.  D.  800,  men  not  acquainted 
with  the  phrases  and  vien  of  scripture,  accustomed  themselves  to  the  reading  of 
doctors,  and  left  the  -word  of  God'' — Bp.  Hooper's  Fifth  Sermon  on  Justif. 


110 


From  this  unnatural  union  arose  an  offspring,  the 
birth  of  which  reminds  us  of  a  certain  fable  of  hea- 
thenism, to  which  we  beg  for  a  moment  to  advert. 

The  fabled  origin  of  Minerva,  is  said  to  have  been 
as  follows.  Jupiter  having  obtained  the  sovereignty 
of  the  skies,  by  his  victory  over  the  Titons,  chose  the 
daughter  of  Ocean  for  his  wife.  An  oracle  however 
had  predicted  that  of  this  marriage  would  proceed  an 
offspring  by  whom  he  would  lose  his  sovereignty. 
To  avoid  this,  Jupiter  swallowed  Ins  wife.  By  and 
by,  he  experienced  a  sharp  pain  in  his  head,  where- 
upon, his  skull  having  been  cleft  by  Vulcan,  there 
sprang  forth  Minerva,  to  the  astonishment  of  Jupiter, 
in  complete  armour,  full  of  enthusiasm,  brandishing 
her  spear  and  clashing  her  arms,  as  if  in  full  battle 
with  some  unseen  enemy.  The  interpretation  is 
plain.  Jupiter  is  the  Papal  Supremacy.  The  thun- 
ders of  the  Vatican  had  gained  the  sovereignty  of  the 
Church.  A  marriage  had  taken  place  between  that 
infallible  sovereignty  and  an  amphibious  offspring  of 
Oceanic  confusion,  half  ecclesiastical  tradition,  half 
heathen  philosophy,  w^hose  name  then  was  Wisdom. 
But  there  was  an  oracle  in  the  book  of  truth  that  the 
consequence  of  that  union  with  '^philosophy  and  vain 
deceit^  after  the  tradition  of  men,  after  the  rudiments 
of  the  7vorld,  and  not  after  Christ,""^  would  be  the 
overthrow  of  that  Papal  dominion.  To  avoid  which, 
instead  of  dissolving  the  unlawful  union,  it  was  only 
made  the  more  entire.  The  Mystical  Potentate  pro- 
ceeded to  swallow  down  the  whole  body  of  mingled 
tradition  and  philosophy,  worldly  rudiment  and  Gen- 


1  Col.  ii.  8. 


Ill 


tile  deceit,  so  that  whether  the  Papacy  had  turned  to 
Philosophy,  or  Philosophy  had  turned  to  the  Papacy, 
whether  Rome  Gentilized,  or  Gentilism  Romanized, 
was  a  point  admitting  of  no  little  doubt.  But,  as  in 
the  experience  of  TertuUian,  ''all  heresies  had  drawn 
existence  from  the  brains  of  philosophers,^'  it  was  now 
much  to  be  expected  that  from  this  immoderate  meal 
of  the  Papacy,  some  unheard  of  progeny  would  soon 
appear.  Vega,  of  Trent,  relates  \\\dXjust  at  this  time 
''there  was  a  great  concertation  of  divines ^  It  was 
certainly  a  time  of  much  labour.  Never  had  Popery 
experienced  such  sharp  head-pains  as  in  the  begin- 
ning of  the  century  which  gave  birth  to  Indulgences 
and  Transubstantiation.  The  nature  of  the  Mystic 
Sovereignty  was  evidently  exerting  its  instinctive 
energies  for  the  production  of  something  which 
should  be  a  meet  protector  for  these  helpless  babes 
in  their  passage  through  this  sinful  world.  Besides, 
the  amphibious  bride  had  been  taken  too  far  into  the 
very  body  of  the  Papacy,  to  be  disgorged  without 
medicines  of  Reform  too  disao^reeable  to  be  thouo^ht 
of  The  only  course  was  to  let  the  aching  head 
bring  forth.  Who  the  Vulcan,  that  struck  the  famous 
blow,  the  learned  may  not  be  agreed.  But  forth 
sprang,  to  the  astonishment  even  of  the  god  himself, 
the  Minerva  of  Romanism,  Scholastic  Theology,  armed 
cap-a-pie,  in  her  father'' s  mail,  with  helmet  of  brass, 
and  lance  of  subtlety,  beating  the  air,  quivering  with 
electric  instinct  of  syllogistic  fight  ;  burning  with 
the  ardour  of  dialectic  chivalry;  ready  to  do  battle 
with  any  foe,  and,  when  none  was  foimd,  to  make 
one;  the  goddess  of  the  Philosophers;  the  Knight 


112 


Errand  of  the  Papacy;  the  Patroness  of  "Angelic," 
Seraphic  "  and  ''Irrefragable  Doctors 

*'  Resenjbling  Ocean  into  tempest  toss'd, 
To  waft  a  feather,  or  to  drown  a  fly." 

Under  such  favouring  auspices,  flourished  the  chief 
Schoolman  of  the  twelfth  century, — Peter  Lombard, 
known,  after  the  name  of  his  chief  work,  as  The  Master 
of  the  Sentences.  Around  that  work,  composed  of  sen- 
tences from  the  Fathers,  was  soon  assembled  a  busy 
tribe  of  lesser  schoolmen,  as  bees,  around  a  cluster  of 
flowers,  whose  whole  business  was  to  make  Commen- 
taries upon  the  Sentences  of  the  Master.  But,  in 
the  next  century,  arose  a  disciple  w^hose  fame  eclipsed 
that  of  the  Master,  and  to  whom  were  given  the  high 
names  of  the  Universal  and  the  Angelic  Doctor,  the 
celebrated  Thomas  Aquinas.  Contemporary  with 
him  was  Bona  venture,  a  schoolman  of  almost  equal 
renown,  particularly  noted  for  mystic  theology  and 
the  worship  of  the  Virgin  Mary.  Of  these  and  the 
whole  constellation  of  Doctors  of  inferior  magnitude, 
belonging  to  the  scholastic  age,  the  learned  Mosheim 
gives  the  following  description  : 

"  The  greatest  part  of  these  Doctors  followed  Aris- 
totle as  their  model,  and  made  use  of  the  logical  and 
metaphysical  principles  of  that  subtle  philosopher  in 
illustrating  the  doctrines  of  Christianity.  Yet  not- 
withstanding all  the  subtlety  of  these  Irrefragable  and 
Seraphic  and  Angelic  Doctors,  as  they  are  called, 
they  often  appeared  wiser  in  their  own  conceit,  than 
they  were  in  reality,  and  frequently  did  little  more 
than  involve  in  greater  obscurity,  the  doctrines  which 
they  pretended  to  place  in  the  clearest  light.  The 


113 


method  of  illustrating  divine  truth  hy  reason  and  phi- 
losophy^ prevailed  universally  :  and  was  followed  with 
such  ardor  that  the  number  of  those  who,  in  confor- 
mity with  the  example  of  the  ancient  Doctors,  drew 
their  systems  of  Theology  from  the  H.  Scriptures 
and  the  writi7igs  of  the  Fathers,  and  who  acquired  on 
that  account  the  name  of  BihlicistSy  diminished  from 
day  to  day."^  John  of  Salisbury,  one  of  the  most 
discreet  writers  of  the  twelfth  century,  testifies  of  the 
divines  of  his  day,  that  they  collected  auditors  solely 
for  the  ostentation  of  science,  and  designedly  render- 
ed their  discourses  obscure,  that  they  might  appear 
loaded  with  the  mysteries  of  wisdom;  and  that  though 
all  professed  to  follow  Aristotle,  they  were  so  ignorant 
of  his  true  doctrine,  that  in  attempting  to  explain  his 
meaning,  they  often  advanced  a  Platonic  notion,  or 
some  erroneous  tenet,  equally  distant  from  the  true 
system  of  Aristotle  and  of  Plato."^  The  learning  even 
of  the  Universal  and  Angelic  Doctor,  was  confined  to 
the  Scholastic  Theology.  Unable  to  read  Greek,  he 
w^as  confined,  in  his  study  of  Aristotle,  to  some  mis- 
erable Arabian  translations,  till  a  better  version  was 
made  by  an  unknown  hand.^  The  leading  charac- 
teristic of  the  Schoolmen  was  that  they  employed 
themselves  "in  an  ostentatious  display  of  ingenuity, 
in  which  axioms,  assumed  without  examination,  dis- 
tinctions, without  any  real  difference,  and  terms  without 
any  precise  meaning,  were  made  use  of  as  weapons  of 
assault  and  defence,  in  controversies  about  abstruse 
questions,  which  after  endless  skirmishes,  it  was  im- 


»  Mosheim's  Eccl.  Hist.  Cent.  xiii.  p.  ii.  c.  3.  2  Enfield's  Hist,  of 

Phil.  8vo.  p.  502.  ^ib.  502,  3. 

15 


114 


possible  to  bring  to  any  issue,  and  which,  notwith- 
standing all  the  violence  of  the  contest,  it  was  of  no 
importance  to  determine."^ 

The  opinions  which  these  philosophical  divines 
instilled  into  the  minds  of  youth  appeared,  even  in 
that  day,  to  the  remaining  votaries  of  the  ancient  fa- 
thers, highly  dangerous  and  even  pernicious.  When 
it  was  objected  to  several  of  their  tenets  that  they 
were  in  direct  contradiction  to  the  genius  of  Chris- 
tianity, and  to  the  express  doctrines  of  Scripture, 
these  scholastic  quibblers  had  recourse,  for  a  reply, 
or  rather  for  a  method  of  escape,  to  that  perfidious 
distinction,  which  has  been  frequently  employed  by 
modern  Deists,  that  these  tenets  were  philosophically 
true  and  conformable  to  right  reason,  but  that  they 
were  indeed  theologically  false^  and  contrary  to  the 
orthodox  faith.' 

Such  a  dispensation  of  divinities  coming  after 
many  centuries  of  extreme  spiritual  and  intellectual 
darkness,  and  characterized  by  such  neglect  of  the 
Scriptures  and  idolatry  of  Aristotle;  by  such  empti- 
ness of  the  mind,  and  yet  such  sharpening  of  its 
powers  of  disputation;  b}^  such  pride  of  reason,  and 
yet  such  poverty  of  knowledge,  when  the  Church 
was  literally  spoiled  through  philosophy  and  vain  de- 
ceit''— when  the  Masters  in  Israel,  did  literally 
"  strive  about  words  to  no  profit,  hut  to  the  subverting 
of  the  hearers,''  continually  starting  '''foolish  and  un- 
learned questions,  rvhich  did  hut  gender  strifes so 
that,  as  Dr.  Jackson  describes  them,  they  delighted 
to  draw  all  doubts  and  queries,  about  the  most  solid 


1  Enfield's  Hist,  of  Phil.  8vo.  p.  509.      2  Mosheim,  cent.  xiii.  c.  iii.  §  viii. 


115 


points  of  divinity,  or  matters  most  capable  of  phi- 
losophical expressions,  into  second  notions,  or  terms 
of  art,  or  artificial  fabrics  of  words ;  as  if  they  meant 
to  rend  or  resolve  strong  and  well-woven  stuff,  into 
small  and  ravelled  threads,  to  entangle  themselves 
and  their  readers,  in  perpetual  fallacies,  a  rebus  ad 
voces''^  Such  a  dispensation  was  a  most  favourable 
opportunity  for  the  maturing  of  the  divers  growths 
of  heresies,  which  had  long  been  silently,  but  vigor- 
ously, spreading  their  poisonous  roots  through  the 
wavSted  vineyard  of  the  Church.  It  is  the  precise 
period  to  which  we  should  naturally  look  wdth  the 
expectation  of  seeing  the  shooting  up  of  heresies  into 
the  upper  atmosphere  of  the  Church,  and  claiming 
to  be  received  into  the  rank  of  doctrines  of  Faith. 
The  history  of  that  period  most  abundantly  con- 
firms such  expectation.  The  age  of  the  Schoolmen 
was  singularly  the  age  of  superstition  and  heresies; 
the  age  of  the  regular  installation  of  those  several 
features  of  Romanism,  which  had  long  been  growing 
into  prominence,  and  which  were  afterwards  eccle- 
siastically robed,  and  more  publicly  proclaimed  by 
the  Council  of  Trent. 

The  most  received  Tenets  of  the  Romish  Church, 
(says  Jackson,)  were  first  hatched  by  the  Schoolmen, 
which  never  saw  the  light  of  heaven,  but  through 
the  dark  painted  glasses  of  the  cells  wherein  they 
were  imprisoned,  and  hence  imagined  our  Saviour's 
form  of  doctrine  to  be  of  the  same  hue  with  midnight 
duncery,  or  grossest  ignorance  of  sacred  dialects."^ 


'Jackson's  Works,  iii.  p.  19. 


2  lb.  vol.  i.  p.  678. 


116 


Let  us  briefly  advert  to  some  of  the  inventions  of 
that  inorenious  ao^e, 

THE  SEVEN  SACRAMENTS. 

Cassander,  a  learned  Romish  Divine,  says:  ''You 
shall  not  easily  find  any  man  before  Peter  Lombard, 
(twelfth  century,)  which  had  set  down  any  certain 
and  definite  number  of  Sacraments. 

SACRAMENTAL  CONFESSION. 

This  bird,  (says  Bishop  Hall,)  w^as  hatched  in  the 
Council  of  Lateran,  1215,  and  fully  plumed  in  the 
Council  of  Trent; 

TRANSUBSTANTIATION. 

"Before  the  Council  of  Lateran,  1215,  transub- 
stantiation  was  no  point  of  faith ;  as  Bellarmine  con- 
fesses."^ The  name  was  first  used  by  Peter  de  Celles 
and  Stephen,  Bishop  of  Autun,  in  the  twelfth  cen- 
tury/ 

HALF  COMMUNION. 

'*We  cannot  deny,  (says  Vasquez,)  that  in  the 
Latin  Church,  there  was  the  use  of  both  kinds,  and 
that  it  so  continued  until  the  days  of  St.  Thomas, 
which  was  about  the  year  of  God,  1260."^  In  the 
previous  century,  Lombard  ''gi^^esan  account  why 
the  body  and  blood  are  administered  under  trvo 
kinds,''  and  Pope  Paschal  II.  orders  that  in  the  com- 
munion they  should  give  the  bread  and  wine  apart. 


>  Cassand.  Consult.  Art.  13,  de  Numero  Sac.  2  Works  ix.  p.  275. 

»Scotus,  quoted  by  (Bp.  Taylor,  Disusasive  from  Popery,  c.  i,  §  5. 
♦Dupin's  Eccl.  Hist.  v.  ix.  p.  156.  &  Quoted  by  Bp.  Hall,  ix.  255. 


117 


which  was  contrary  to  the  custom  of  Cluny,  where 
sometimes  they  dipped  the  host  in  the  wine.  In- 
fants and  the  Infirm  w^ere  excepted  from  this  order.* 

IMAGE  WORSHIP. 

Aquinas  held,  ^'  that  the  Image  is  to  be  worshipped 
with  the  same  •adoration  which  is  due  to  the  thing 
represented  by  it;"  an  opinion  which  sounder 
Schoolmen  refused.  A  writer  of  the  previous  cen- 
tury, Guibert,  had  gone  no  further  than  to  say  :  "  We 
fix  our  wandering  mind  on  the  contemplation  of 
spiritual  things,  by  looking  upon  pictures,  which 
serve  as  it  were  to  admonish  us  of  our  duty."^  This 
was  the  doctrine  of  Durandus  and  other  Schoolmen. 
But  that  of  Aquinas  became  the  doctrine,  not  only 
of  "  all  his  disciples,"  but  also  of  all  the  old  School- 
men almost,?  and  has  since  been,  says  Azorius,  the 
Jesuit,    the  constant  judgment  of  divines."^ 

PURGATOIIY, 

"  For  extinguishing  the  imaginary  flames  of  Popish 
Purgatory,  we  need  not  go  far,  (says  Usher,)  to  fetch 
water.  And  if  we  need  the  assistance  of  the  ancient 
Fathers,  behold  they  be  here  ready  with  full  buckets 
in  their  hands."  The  Archbishop  shows,  from  Otto 
Frisingensis,  that  in  the  twelfth  century,  ^*the  doc- 
trine of  purgatory  was  esteemed  only  a  private  asser- 
tion, held  by  some,  and  not  an  article  of  faith."  To 
Thomas  Aquinas,  and  other  Schoolmen  of  the  next 
century.  Usher  ascribes  "  the  bringing  of  the  frame 
of  this  new  building  towards  perfection.'''^ 


'  Dupin's  Eccl.  Hist.  cent.  xii.  pp.  198  and  35.  2  ib,  cent.  xii.  p.  141. 

2  Usher's  Answer  to  a  Jesuit,  pp.  432-3.  *»  lb.  pp.  164-6. 


118 


INDULGENCES. 

These  follow  Purgatory  of  course.  Bishop  Fish- 
er, the  Romish  Prelate,  says,  that  in  the  beginning 
of  the  Church,  there  was  no  use  of  indulgences ;  that 
they  began  after  the  people  were  awhile  affrighted 
with  the  torments  of  purgatory ;  and  many  of  the 
Schoolmen  confess  that  their  use  beg^an  in'the  time  of 
Pope  Alexander  III.,  towards  the  end  of  the  twelfth 
century.^  Chemnitz  challenges  the  production  of 
evidence  to  the  existence  of  Indulgences,  according 
to  the  Trent  doctrine,  prior  to  the  age  of  Thomas 
Aquinas. 

DISUSE  OF  THE  SCRIPTURES. 

Contemporaneous  with  the  coming  in  of  the  above 
corruptions  and  the  multiplication  of  subordinate 
branches  of  evil,  was  the  removal  in  a  great  measure 
of  the  Scriptures  from  the  daily  services  of  the 
Church,  as  it  had  been  already  from  the  studies  of 
the  leading  divines  and  Schoolmen,  and  the  substitu- 
tion of  legends  and  tales  of  saints.  To  this  we  have 
the  testimony  of  the  Oxford  Tracts.  "  It  would  seem 
as  if  the  eleventh,  or  at  least  the  twelfth  century,  a 
time  fertile  in  other  false  steps  in  religion,  must  be 
charged  also,  as  far  as  concerns  Rome  and  its  more 
intimate  dependencies,  with  a  partial  removal  of  the 
light  of  the  written  word  from  the  sanctuary."  In 
the  year  1278 — grave  and  sounder  matter  being  ex- 
cluded, apocryphal  legends  of  saints  were  used  to 
stimulate  and  occupy  the  popular  mind ;  and  a  way 


>  Bishop  Taylor's  Dissuasive  from  Popery,  c.  1.  §  3. 


119 


was  made  for  the  use  of  those  invocations  to  the  Vir- 
gin and  other  saints,  which  heretofore  were  unknown 
in  public  worship.^ 

Thus  it  is  impressively  evident  that  the  age  of  the 
elder  schoolmen,  particularly  that  of  Thomas  Aqui- 
nas, was  productive  of  all  the  most  odious  of  the 
overt  deformities  of  Romanism.  Then  it  was  that, 
as  from  a  forcing  bed,  long  seeded  and  fermenting, 
they  sprang  up  together,  suddenly,  vigorously,  and 
rank.  Now  in  all  the  corruptions  that  have  been 
mentioned,  there  is  a  connection  with  the  question 
of  Justification;  while  in  Confession,  Image  Wor- 
ship, Purgatory,  and  Indulgence,  there  is  a  direct 
and  near  connection,  so  that  such  corruptions  could 
not  have  taken  place  but  in  consequence  of  a  gross 
departure  from  the  truth  on  that  vital  point.  With 
a  confident  expectation,  therefore,  of  finding  it  in 
those  Schoolmen,  we  look  for  an  advance  of  corrup- 
tion in  the  doctrine  of  Justification,  corresponding 
with,  and  accounting  for,  the  great  advance  of  cor- 
ruption in  all  those  parts  of  religion  which  depend 
on  this  as  their  head  and  heart.  We  are  not  disap- 
pointed. The  Age  of  Peter  Lombard  and  Thomas 
Aquinas  was  emphatically  that  of  the  introduction 
into  the  high  places  of  school,  and  church,  doctrine  of 
the  present  Romish  dogma  of  Justification.  They 
were  the  men  who,  when  the  widely  diffused  and 
spreading  spirit  of  self-righteousness,  as  yet  without 
a  fixed  doctrinal  form  in  the  Church,  was  fast  gather- 
ing itself  up,  like  the  fabled  genii  of  oriental  tales, 
into  shape,  and  demanding  *'  a  local  habitation  and  a 


1  Tract  on  the  Rnman  Breviary,  No.  75.    Am.  Ed.,  pp.  180,  2. 


120 


name/'  they  were  the  men  who  clothed  it  first  in 
solemn  didactic  raiment,  invested  it  with  the  dignity 
of  formal  theology,  ushered  it  before  the  Chnrch  under 
high  scholastic  sanction,  recorded,  for  coming  gene- 
rations, that  doctrine  of  self-righteousness,  under 
shape  of  a  righteousness,  implanted  and  inherent,  for 
justification,  which  the  Council  of  Trent  adopted  as 
the  model  of  its  decree,  and  which  has  stood  ever  since 
a  most  lamentable  evidence  of  how  the  Church  of 
Rome  was  spoiled,  by  the  rudiments  of  the  world, 
and  the  traditions  of  men,"  intp  a  rejection  of  "  the 
righteousness  of  God."  The  history  of  the  debates 
of  Trent  are  continual  proof  that  the  Schoolmen, 
especially  Aquinas,  were  the  Masters  of  those  sen- 
tences which  issued  from  that  body  of  divinity.  An- 
drada,  a  famous  defender  of  the  Council,  is  cited,  by 
Chemnitz,  as  acknowledging  that  the  decree  of  Trent 
"  was  only  a  paraphrase  of  the  doctrine  which  had 
been  taught  by  these  Schoolmen,  and  that  the  single 
purpose  in  constructing  that  decree  rvas  to  repeat  and 
confirm  their  opinion;''^  while  another  learned  mem- 
ber of  the  Council,  Pighius,  said  it  could  not  be 
denied  that  this  great  doctrine  of  Christianity  had 
been  rather  obscured  than  illustrated  by  the  thorny 
questions  and  disputations  of  the  Schoolmen."^ 

Andreas  Vega,  another  prominent  divine  of  the 
Council,  has  left  us  the  following  account  of  the  origin 
of  its  doctrine.  "  Some  ages  since,  there  was  a  great 
concertation  among  divines  what  should  be  the  for- 
mal cause  of  our  Justification.  Some  thought  it  to 
be  no  created  justice  infused  into  man ;  but  only  the 


'  Chemnitz  Examen.  Dec.  Con.  Trident,  p.  146.  ^  P.  128. 


121 


favour  and  merciful  acceptation  of  God :  Others, 
whose  opinion  is  more  common  and  probable,  held 
it  to  be  some  created  quality,  informing  the  souls  of 
the  just."  "  This  opinion  was  allow^ed  in  the  Coun- 
cil of  Vienna ;  and  the  School-Doctors ,  after  the  Mas- 
ter of  the  Sentences,  delivered  this  not  as  prolahle 
only,  hut  as  certain.  Afterwards,  when  some  defend- 
ed the  opposite  part  to  be  more  probable,  it  seemed 
good  to  the  holy  Synod  of  Trent  thus  to  determine 


1  Vega,  quoted  by  Bishop  Hall — Works,  8vo.  ix.  p.  239. 

The  theology  of  the  Schoolmen  retained  undisputed  sway  till  the  era  of  the 
Reformation,  when  Erasmus,  Ludovicus  Vives,  James  Faber,  &c.,  not  having 
the  fear  of  heresy  before  their  eyes,  boldly  charged,  with  solid  learning  and  cut- 
ting ridicule,  upon  the  follies  of  the  prevailing  systems  of  theologizing,  as  well 
as  philosophising.  But  the  Malleus  Scholasticorum  was  Luther,  and  the 
swelling  tide  that  rent  asunder,  and  cast  off,  and  sent  to  oblivion,  the  chains  of 
ice  in  which  the  mind  of  all  Europe  had  been  so  long  bound  down  under  dark- 
ness, was  that  of  the  Reformation  throwing  oft'  Romanism,  and  with  it  the  whole 
dominion  of  Aristolelian  and  Scholastic  subtlety.  "  The  study  of  ancient  lan- 
guages being  now  revived,  and  the  arts  of  eloquence  and  criticism  having  now 
resumed  their  ancient  station,  the  Reformers  were  soon  convinced  that  igno- 
rance and  barbarism  had  been  among  the  principal  causes  of  the  corruption  of 
doctrine  and  discipline  in  the  Church."  "  Luther  saw  much  reason  to  consider 
the  scholastic  philosophy  as  the  foundation  of  the  principal  errors  which  had 
been  introduced  into  theology,  and  the  chief  support  of  that  oppressive  dominion 
which  the  See  of  Rome  exercised  over  the  consciences  of  men ;  they  regarded 
the  logical  and  metaphysical  parts  of  Aristotle  as  the  immediate  grounds  of  those 
disputes  which  had  given  rise  to  the  factions  of  the  Thomists,  Scotists,  Occam- 
ists  and  others."  But  in  order  to  retain  this  Palladium  of  the  Church  of  Rome, 
the  advocates  of  established  forms  pleaded  that  the  evils  complained  of  had  arisen 
not  from  the  Scholastic  method,  but  its  abuse.  Under  this  futile  pretence^  the 
friends  of  the  Romish  hierarchy  retained  in  their  hands  an  instrument,  which 
had  been  found  so  useful  in  establishing  and  perpetuating  the  reign  of  ig- 
norance and  superstition.  Hence  the  Scholastic  philosophy  was  still  studied 
and  professed  in  the  colleges  and  monasteries  belonging  to  the  Church  of  Rome 
The  generality  of  the  Romish  clergy  still  retained  so  much  of  the  Scholastic 
spirit  that,  instead  of  promoting,  they  only  retarded,  the  progress  of  true  phi- 
losophy. 

16 


0 

122 

Now,  if  it  may  not  be  shown  that  the  divines  at 
Oxford  have  gone,  like  the  holy  Synod  of  Trent, 
among  the  spinosas  qucestiones  et  dejinitiones  Scho- 


Their  writings  chiefly  consisted  of  systems  of  philosophy,  summaries  of  logic, 
theses  upon  k?cholastic  topics  and  commentaries  upon  the  works  of  Aristotle 
and  Thomas  Aquinas.i 

Platonism  and  the  Middle  Ages  are  quite  hobbies  in  the  Oxford  School.  The 
Republic  of  Plato  is  to  Mr.  Newman  almost  an  inspired  type  of  the  Church.  He 
cannot  account  for  "  the  close  parallelism"  between  the  "  Republic  "  and  the 
Church  without  adverting  to  the  idea  of"  a  species  of  inspiration  from  the  same 
Being  who  formed  the  Church."  He  considers  Plato  as  having  foreseen  with 
an  almost  "prophetic  eye"  "  the  phases  through  which  the  Church  would  pass, 
having  supplied  the  best  outline  ever  yet  given,  not  only  of  the  civil  but  of  the 
ecclesiastical  history  of  man." — British  Critic,  No.  53. 

Much  of  the  peculiar  mysticism  of  the  Oxford  School,  and  its  fondness  lor 
the  Alexandrian,  may  be  accounted  for  by  its  love  of  Plato.  "Enthusiasm, 
mysticism  and  fanaticism  have  been  the  extravagancies  of  Platonism."  The 
school  of  Alexatidria,  in  the  second  century,  was  miserably  unevangelized,  by 
that  Philosophy,  many  of  its  divines  remaining  devout  Platonics  after  they  be- 
came Christians.  1'he  school  of  Oxford  is  most  reverently  following  their 
steps,  binder  the  guidance  of  the  Schoolmen. 

It  may  here  be  remembered  that  in  England  "  the  study  of  the  Greek  philoso- 
phy has  been  chiefly  confined  to  the  University  of  Oxford,  which  providentially 
(says  the  British  Critic)  has  been  saved  from  setting  the  seal  of  its  sanction 
either  to  Paley  or  to  Locke ;  and  has  adhered  firmly  to  Aristotle  as  the  text 
book  in  her  plan  of  education."  "Precisely  the  reverse  is  the  case  at  the  Uni- 
versity of  Cambridge,  where  Locke  and  Paley  have  long  l^ld  a  prominent  place 
in  instruction." — See  British  Critic  for  July,  1838,  p.  2 — and  Sedgwick  on  the 
studies  of  the  University  of  Cambridge,  p.  40. 

It  may  also  be  noted,  that, />ari  passu,  with  the  coming  out  of  Oxford  Di- 
vinity, there  was  a  decided  effort,  by  a  series  of  elaborate  papers  in  the  British 
Magazine,  (a  work  sympathizing  entirely  with  that  way)  to  -write  up  the  Mid- 
dle Ages; — to  call  attention  to  their  stores;  to  vindicate  them  from  that  char- 
acter of  ^^Dark  Jlgcs,^^  by  which  it  has  been  the  universal  opinion  of  Protest- 
ants they  ought  to  be  known.  As  a  specimen  of  such  effort,  we  have  in  a  late 
British  Critic  the  following  passage,  found  in  an  article  which  decries  the  study 
of  the  Evidences  of  Christianity  as  inimical  to  the  right  sort  of  faith,  and  advo- 
cates the  receiving  of  our  doctrines  from  the  traditionary  Creed  of  the  Church, 
prior  to  any  reference  to  Scripture,  and  just  because  it  is  -what  the  Church  be- 


'  Enfield's  Hist,  of  Phil.  b.  viii.  c.  3. 


123 


lasticoruniy  to  get  their  doctrine  of  Justification,  it 
will  at  least  be  made  to  appear  that  they  have  ar- 
rived at  a  singular  agreement  with  the  doctrines  of 
the  Schoolmen. 

From  the  extract  from  Vega,  just  given,  we  learn 
*  the  following  important  particulars. — 1.  That  prior 
to  the  Council  of  Trent,  the  doctrine  of  the  Church 
of  Rome  was  not  determined  on  this  great  point,  of  all 
vital  religion,  whether  justification  consists  in  an  in- 
fused, personal  righteousness,  or  in  an  external  and 
imputed.  2.  That,  on  this  subject,  there  had  been  a 
great  controversy  among  divines,  some  ages  prior  to 
the  Council.  No  doubt  he  refers  to  the  age  of  the 
elder  Schoolmen.'  3.  That  while  the  doctrine  of  in- 
fused righteousness  for  justification,  was    allorved"  in 

lieves.  "There  is  a  certain  era  of  the  Church  (says  the  Review)  of  which  our 
enlightened  generation  seldom  deigns  to  speak  with  respect;  holding  it  to  have 
been  dark;  not  only  in  arts  and  sciences,  not  only  in  its  manners  and  laws; 
but  also,  and  that  above  all,  in  its  religion.  Any  one  who  has  passed  a  few 
hours  in  a  college  library,  will  ren.ember  vast  rows  of  gigantic  volumes,  which, 
heavy  and  sombre  as  they  frown  on  the  modern  student,  look  like  the  sepulchral 
monuments  of  an  obsolete  literature.  These  are  the  works  of  the  Schoolmen, 
great  men  in  their  day,  heard  and  read  and  admired,  and  imitated  by  thousands, 
Taken,  as  a  whole,  it  was  a  vast  school  of  learning,  vast  in  its  duration  and  ex- 
tent ;  in  the  powers  and  labours  of  its  chief  masters  and  in  the  multitudes  of 
those  they  led.  Yet  the  judgment  of  the  moderns  (we  are  not  enquiring  whe- 
ther true  or  false)  their  deliberate  judgment  is,  that  all  this  learning  was  but  a 
cloud  of  darkness,  obscuring  both  Gospel  truth  and  the  natural  light  of  human 
reason  ;  that  it  was  all  labour  lost,  a  mere  shadow  of  knowledge." — See  British 
Critic  for  July,  1839,  p.  22.  How  these  hints  are  intended  to  operate,  cannot 
be  doubted. 

'  That  this  controversy  originated  in  comparatively  modern  times  is  thus 
granted  by  Vasquez,  another  distinguished  Trent  divine.  "Ea  quse  pertinent 
ad  formalem  causam  nostra;  justiflcationis — dificiUima  eorum  quae  de  justifica- 
tione  nostra  tractari  solent,  neque  prseteritis  sceculis  tam  exacts  a  patribus  dis- 
cussa,  quam  ea  qua?  de  necessitate  auxillii  gratia;  ad  operandum  et  recte  viven- 
dum  hactenus  anobis  sunt  dispulata." — Quest.  1 12.  Disp.  202,  Bishop  Bar- 
row has  a  similar  observation. — See  on  Justific. 


124 


the  Council  of  Vienna,  [tolerated,)  it  was  reserved 
for  the  School  Doctors,  after  their  great  leader,  Peter 
Lombard,  the  Master  of  the  Sentences,  to  propound 
this  growing  doctrine,  not  as  prohaUe  only,  hut  as 
certain''  4.  That  still  there  w^ere  those  in  the 
Church  of  Rome  who  maintained  the  opposite  doc- 
trine. And  those  continued  of  that  side  till  the 
Council  of  Trent.  Some  in  the  Council  we  know, 
from  other  sources,  were  of  that  side,  and  openly 
maintained  it.  But  this  was  to  countenance  Lu- 
theranism.  Therefore  it  seemed  good  to  the  Coun- 
cil to  determine  that  justifying  righteousness  is  in- 
fused and  inherent  righteousness,  and  to  curse  all 
who,  like  those  of  w^hom  Vega  speaks,  should  pre- 
sume to  hold  any  different  opinion.  ^ 

'  Mr.  Faber  believes  that  "  the  system  of  human,  justifying  righteousness,  in- 
fused, and  therefore  inherent,"  derived  its  origin  from  the  early  Schoolmen, 
especially  Peter  Lombard  and  Thomas  Aquinas.  After  showing  that  the  doc- 
trine of  the  famous  St.  Bernard,  of  Clairval,  the  head  of  the  Biblicists,  in  oppo- 
sition to  the  speculative  philosophico-theology  of  the  Schoolmen,  in  the  mid- 
dle of  the  twelfth  century,  was  directly  the  reverse;  and  after  declaring  that  he 
can  find  in  the  writings  of  St.  Bernard,  no  evidence  that  he  had  ever  heard  of 
such  a  doctrine,  sums  up  his  thoughts  on  the  point  of  derivation,  as  follows : 
"Scripture  rejects  it :  The  Ancient  Church  disowns  it:  Bernard,  the  last  of  the 
Fathers,  apparently  knows  nothing  of  it.  But  the  Schoolmen  who  immediate- 
ly followed  Bernard,  and  whose  characteristic  was  a  desertion  both  of  Scripture 
and  of  Ecclesiastical  Antiquity,  for  Human  Reason  and  Human  Philosophy, 
give  it,  as  the  fruit  of  their  novel  mode  of  illustrating  divine  things,  with  the 
utmost  precision  and  intelligibility.  Furthermore,  though  the  speculations  of 
the  Schoolmen  were  strongly  opposed  by  the  Biblicists  of  the  Old  Theology, 
they  rapidly  became  so  fashionable,  as  to  be  received  even  by  acclamation,  and 
thence  to  form,  henceforth,  the  basis  of  the  accredited  system  of  Orthodox  Di- 
vinity."— Primitive  Doc.  of  Jnstific.  p.  276. 

The  following  is  an  example  of  St.  Bernard's  doctrine.  "  What  can  all  our 
righteousness  be  before  God  "?  Shall  it  not,  according  to  the  Prophet,  be  viewed 
as  a  filthy  rag;  and  if  it  be  strictly  judged,  shall  not  all  our  righteousness  turn 
out  to  be  mere  unrighteousness  and  deficiency  ?  Yet  who  shall  bring  any  ac- 
cusation against  the  elect  of  God  ?    To  me,  it  is  sufficient  for  all  righteousness 


125 


Now,  since  from  one  of  the  chief  divines  and  de- 
fenders of  the  Council  of  Trent,  and  from  other 
sources  previously  mentioned,  it  is  manifest  that  the 
doctrine  established  at  Trent,  was  there  considered 
as  having  been  drawn  directly  from  the  Schoolmen, 
and  to  have  been  first  propounded,  for  a  sure  doc- 
trine, by  those  ''Irrefragable"  Doctors;  so  that  the 
Romanism  of  Trent,  and  the  Romanism  of  the 
Schoolmen,  on  the  present  subject,  are  one,  in  all 
important  respects ;  it  will  tend  not  a  little  toward  a 
right  estimate  of  the  Romanistic  character  of  Oxford 
Divinity,  if  we  shall  make  good  the  three  following 
propositions. 

1.  That  the  Schoolmen  described  the  righteous- 
ness of  Justification,  precisely  as  do  our  Oxford 
Divines. 

2.  That  they  felt  the  same  necessity,  as  do  the 
latter,  of  finding  out  a  distinction  between  an  in- 
dwelling righteousness  that  justifies,  and  an  indwell- 
ing righteousness  that  sanctifies,  and  that  they  fell 
upon  precisely  the  same  subtle  and  shadowy  expe- 
dient. 

3.  That  this  very  distinction  of  the  ancient  School 
men,  which  equally  characterizes  the  divinity  of  our 
Oxford  Schoolmen,  is  used  by  our  ancient  writers  as 
one  distinctive  characteristic  of  Popery. 

only  to  have  Him  propitiated,  against  whom  only  I  have  sinned.  Every  thing 
which  he  shall  have  decreed  not  to  impute  to  me,  is  thus,  as  if  it  had  never  been. 
Freedom  from  all  sin,  is  the  righteousness  of  God.  The  pure  indulgence  of  God  is 
the  righteousness  of  man.  Saith  the  Apo  tie,  if  one  died  for  all,  then  were  all 
dead  ;  meaning  that  the  satisfaction  made  by  one,  should  be  imputed  to  all,  even 
as  one  bare  the  sins  of  all ;  so  that  there  should  not  be  found  one  distinct  per- 
son who  incurred  the  forfeit,  and  another  who  made  satisfaction  ;  because  truly 
the  head  and  the  body  are  one  Christ.  The  head  satisfied  for  its  members : 
Christ  for  his  own  bowels."— See  St.  Bernard  as  quoted  by  Faber,  in  Prim.  Doc. 
of  Just.  pp.  I.'i5,  158. 


126 


1.  As  to  the  first  of  these  propositions,  there  is  no 
need  of  argument — Mr  Newman  declares  it.  "Great 
divines,  (he  says)  as  Lombard  and  Thomas  Aquinas, 
{the  two  head  Schoolmen)  declare  that  the  Holy  Spirit 
indwelling,  is  the  formal  cause  of  Justification''' — Jus- 
tification by  inherent  righteousness,  in  other  words ; — 
or  to  use  the  words  of  St.  Thomas  himself,  ''Justify- 
ing Grace  is  something  real  and  positive  in  the  soul, 
a  supernatural  quality."^ 

2.  The  second  proposition  may  be  as  readily  dis- 
patched. It  will  be  remembered  that  while  Mr. 
Newman  most  directly  asserts  that  there  is  but  one 
righteousness ;  that  Justification  and  Sanctification 
are  substantially  the  same ;  that  the  usual  distinction 
between  them  is  unscriptural,  that  they  are  really 
one,  the  terms  Renewal  and  Justification  being  iden- 
tical;  he  attempts  what  he  considers  a  most  impor- 
tant distinction,  a  distinction  on  which  Dr.  Pusey 
positively  asserts,  that  he  and  his  fellows  "  exclude 
Sanctification  from  having  any  place  in  our  Justifi- 
cation," and  on  which  Mr.  Newman  asserts,  that 
Justification  is  ''not  renewal,  nor  the  principle  of  re- 
newal, but  perfectly  distinct  from  renewal,  with  which 
Romanists  identify  it.""  The  idea  then  is  that  between 
^'the  divine  gift,"  or  "the  justifying  principle,"  or 
^'the  inward  reality  of  righteousness,"  or  "the  in- 
dwelling of  the  Holy  Ghost,"  (whichever  expression 
we  choose)  and  personal  holiness,  there  is  such  a 
difference  that  while  the  latter  is  the  complex  of  the 
several  virtues  of  the  renewed  mind,  the  other  iricludes 
them  all,  hut  is  not  any  of  them.    Hence  that  curious 


'  Gratia  graturn  faciens,  id  est  justificans,  est  in  Aniraa,  quiddam  reale  et 
positivum,  qualitas  qusedam  supernatnralis.    Aquinas,  p.  1,  2,  q.  110. 


127 


description  of  the  Justifying  righteousness,  as  a 
"  something  which  is  within  us,  but  not  of  us,  nor 
in  us,  not  any  quality  or  act  of  our  minds,  (though 
within  them,)  not  faith,  not  renovation,  not  obedience, 
not  any  thing  cognizable  by  man,  but  a  certain  di- 
vine gift  in  which  all  these  are  included."^ 

Now  on  what  ground  can  Mr.  Newman  assert  that 
the  Romanists  idemtify  Justification  with  renewal,^^ 
one  whit  more  than  he  does ;  how  can  he  rest,  as  he 
does,  his  grand  claim  of  distinction  between  his  doc- 
trine and  that  of  Rome  on  the  fact  that  they  make 
that  identification  and  he  does  not,  when  we  find  him 
saying,  that  ''the  real  distinction  already  alluded  to, 
(his  own,)  is  allowed  in  the  Church  of  Rome,  and  held 
by  Romanists,  both  before  the  Council  of  Trent  and 
after  ? 

*'  St.  Thomas  contends  that  the  gratia  jusfijicans,  (the  justifying 
righteousness,)  is  not  the  same  as  the  habit  of  love  ;  the  latter  belong- 
ing to  the  will,  and  the  former  to  the  essence  of  the  soul.  In  which 
opinion  he  is  followed  by  Cajetan,  Conradus,  Soto  and  others. 
Bonaventura"  (one  of  the  most  mystical  and  superstitious,  and 
idolatrous  of  the  Schoolmen,)  "  assents,  so  far  as  to  consider  there  is 
a  real  distinction  between  them.  This  alleged  distinction  was  a 
subject  of  dispute  at  the  Council  of  Trent  between  the  Franciscans 
and  Dominicans,  on  all  which  accounts  it  was  left  unsettled  by  the 
Fathers  there  assembled."^ 


•  Newman's  Lectures,  p.  159. 

2  Newman's  Lectures,  p.  397.  "  There  was  a  sharp  disputation  between  those 
two  orders,  (says  Father  Paul,)  whether  the  habit  of  grace  be  the  same  with 
the  habit  of  charity,  as  Scotus  would,  or  distinct  as  St.  Thomas."  Hist.  p.  198. 

Whoever  will  take  the  trouble  to  read  what  St.  Thomas  has  left  us  under  his 
1 10th  Question  of  the  second — first  part  of  his  Summa,  as  well  as  under  ques- 
tion 113th — will  perceive  an  exact  resemblance  between  Mr.  N.  and  him  on 
the  subject  in  hand.  Does  Mr.  N.  sometimes  treat  the  Grace  of  Justification 
as  the  same  with  infused  righteousness  1  so  does  St.  Thomas  ?    ''Idem  est 


J  28 

We  add  to  the  above,  the  extract  from  Annati,  in 
Tracts  for  the  Times,  No.  71.  "  It  is  de  fide  that 
man  is  justified  by  inherent  righteousness ;  it  is  not 
de  fide  (not  an  established  article  of  faith,)  that  justi- 
fying righteousness  is  a  hahit  or  quality.''^ 

Now,  with  all  this  before  him  how  could  Mr. 
Newman  say,  as  he  does  on  page  150  of  his  Lec- 
tures, that  Romanists  make  Justifying  righteousness 
"  consist  in  a  supernatural  quality,  as  if  that  word 
quality  were  decided  upon  any  more,  among  them, 
than  it  is  with  him,  and  as  if  in  the  use  of  that  word 
lay  the  great  difference  between  his  doctrine  and 
theirs  ? 

Enough  has  now  been  said  for  our  second  proposi- 
tion, viz.  that  the  Schoolmen  and  our  Oxford  Di- 
vines, not  only  are  agreed  as  to  inherent  righteous- 
ness for  justification,  but  are  characterized  by  pre- 
cisely the  same  vain  device  to  prevent  its  being  con- 
sidered exactly  the  same  thing  as  Sanctification. 

3.  For  our  third  proposition  that  our  ancient 
writers  have  used  that  very  distinction  as  a  distinc- 
tive characteristic  of  Popery  ;  Hooker  will  suffice  as 


gratiae  infusio,  et  culpse  reraissio,  sicut  idem  est  illuminatio  et  tenebrarum  ex- 
pulsio.  Q.  113.  Does  Mr.  Newman  make  them  divine  in  certain  respects? — 
so  does  St.  Thomas.  He  mentions  certain  respects  in  which  Justifying  grace 
is  not  a  quality  of  the  soul — and  one  in  which  it  is.  As  to  the  latter  he  says  : 
Quaedam  est  qualitas  supernaturalis,  non  eadem  cum  virtute  infusa  ;  sed  aliquid 
praeter  infusas  virtates,  quaedam  habitudo,  quae  praesupponitur  in  istis  virtutibus 
sicut  earum  principium  et  radix,  &c.  The  same  difference  is  expressed  else- 
where, as  follows  : — Aliter  est  in  anima  gratia,  et  aliter  character.  He  says, 
Character  importat  quandam  potentiam  spiritualem  ordinatam  ad  ea  quae  sunt 
divinae  cultus.  Anima  est  subjectum,  characteris,  secundum  intellectuam  par- 
tem, in  qua  est  fides.  And  the  difference  between  this  character  and  grace  is 
thus  given.  Gratia  est  in  anima  sicut  quaedam  forma  habens  esse  completam 
in  ca ;  character  antem  est  in  anima  sicut  quaedam  virtus  instrumentalis. 


129 


an  example.  In  the  commencement  of  his  famous 
discourse  on  Justification,  he  sets  out  with  that  ad- 
mirable account  of  the  doctrine  of  the  Church  of 
Rome,  which  Ave  have  laid  before  the  reader  already. 
The  only  authority  which  he  quotes  for  the  account 
there  given  of  what  justifying  righteousness  consists 
in,  according  to  Rome,  is  in  the  words  of  Thomas 
Aquinas,  containing  the  precise  distinction  in  ques- 
tion, and  which  Mr.  Newman  refers  to,  above,  as 
ao^reeinof  with  his  own. 

"  Justifying  grace  is  something  real  and  positive  in  the  soul — not 
the  same  with  infused  virtue  as  the  Master  (Lombard)  maintains  ; 
but  something  beside  the  infused  virtues,  faith,  hope,  charity;  a  cer- 
tain habitude  which  is  presupposed  in  those  virtues,  as  their  princi- 
ple and  root ;  it  occupies,  as  its  subject,  the  essence  of  the  soul,  not 
its  powers;  yet  from  it  flow  virtues  into  the  powers  of  the  soul  by 
which  the  powers  themselves  are  formed  into  actions."^ 

This  is  precisely  Mr.  Newman's  idea;  a  Quod- 
lihet  of  the  Schools,"  (as  Bishop  Andrewes  says,) 
a  habitude  distinct  from  any  habit ;  an  essence  in  the 
soul  distinct  from  any  quality  of  the  soul :  righteous- 
ness distinct  from  the  righteous  affections  of  faith, 
hope,  and  charity.  And  this  is  the  Romanism  of 
the  Schoolmen,  which  Hooker  selects  as  the  best  ex- 
pression of  the  very  essence  of  all  Romanism.  And 

iThom.  Aquin.  1,  2.  qnaest.  110.  Gratia  faciens  gratum  id  est  justificans, 
est  in  anima  quiddam  reale  et  positivum,  qualitas  quaedam  (art.  ii.  concl.)  su- 
pernaturalis,  non  eadem  cum  virtute  infusa,  ut  magister;  sed  afiquid  (art.  ii.) 
praeter  virtntes  infusas,  fidem,  spem,  eharitatem,  habrtudo  quaedam  (art.  ii.  ad  3.) 
quae  praesupponitur  in  virtufibus  istis,  sicut  earum  principium  et  radix;  essen- 
tiam  animae  tanquam  subjectum  occupat,  non  potentias,  sed  ab  ipsa  (art.  iv.  ad. 
1.)  effluunt  vitutes  in  potentias  animee,  per  quas  potentiae  moventur  ad  actus. 
— Hooker's  Disc.  Justif.  §  5, 

It  may  be  of  use  to  remark  that,  in  all  editions  of  Hooker,  which  the  author 
has  seen,  the  above  quotation  is  referred  to  quest.  100  of  the  second — first  part 
of  Aquinas.    It  should  be  as  above,  viz.  1 10. 
17 


130 


this  is  Oxford  Divinity — and  this  is  what  the  Coun- 
cil of  Trent  referred  to  as  the  source  and  model  of 
theirs — the  new  divinity  of  the  dark  ages,  engender- 
ed of  Pagan  philosophy  and  Papal  superstition,  mar- 
ried together  under  the  bands  of  the  Schoolmen. 

It  is  manifest  from  the  above,  that  the  question 
which  the  Trent  doctors  left  unsettled,  and  therefore 
open,  was  one  on  which  Aquinas  differed  from  his 
Master,  Peter  Lombard ;  the  latter  making  justifying 
righteousness  precisely  the  same  as  Sanctification ; 
the  former  attempting  the  distinction  which  Mr. 
Newman  and  Dr.  Pusey  would  now  use  as  evidence 
that  their  doctrine  differs  from  that  of  Rome. 

We  are  indebted  to  Mr.  Keble,  in  his  Appendix 
to  Book  V.  of  his  learned  edition  of  Hooker,  for  the 
following  additional  evidence,  that  Hooker  considered 
that  very  distinction  as  a  striking  characteristic  of  the 
Romanism  of  the  Schoolmen.  Hooker  writes  as 
follows : 

The  Schoolmen,  which  follow  Thomas,  do  not 
only  comprise  in  the  name  of  grace,  the  favour  of 
God,  his  Spirit,  and  effects  of  His  Spirit ;  but,  over 
and  besides  these  three,  a  fourth  Mnd  of  formal  hahit 
or  inherent  quality,  which  maketh  the  person  of  man 
acceptable,  perfecteth  the  substance  of  his  mind,  and 
causeth  the  virtuous  actions  thereof  to  be  meritorious. 
This  grace  they  will  have,  (as  we  shall  see  our  Ox- 
ford divines  will  have,)  to  be  the  principal  effect  of 
sacraments ;  a  grace  which  neither  Christ  nor  any 
apostle  of  Christ  did  ever  mention.  The  fathers 
have  it  not  in  their  writings,  although  they  often 
speak  of  sacraments,  and  of  the  grace  we  receive  by 
them.    Yea,  they  which  have  found  it  out,  are  as 


131 


doubtful  as  any  other,  what  name  or  nature  they 
should  give  unto  it." 

They  could  not  have  been  more  puzzled  about 
its  name  and  nature  than  their  present  successors 
seem  to  be,  as  we  have  already  seen  in  the  assertion, 
that  it  is  the  same  as  Sanctification,  and  then  the  flat 
denial  that  it  is  any  such  thing/ 

Such  then  is  the  doctrine  at  once  of  Oxford  Di- 
vines, and  of  a  race  of  theologians  eminently  distin- 
guished in  their  day,  for  the  preference  of  heathen 
dialectics,  to  Holy  Scripture,  the  words  of  Aristotle 
to  the  writings  of  the  Christian  Fathers,  so  that  those 
who  made  the  Bible  their  guide,  were  called  in  dis- 
tinction from  them,  by  a  name  rendered  opprobrious 
by  the  general  neglect  of  the  Bible — Bihiicists. 

The  question  is  forced  upon  us; — Since  the  age 
that  was  distinguished  by  the  bringing  in  of  this 
doctrine  of  inherent  righteousness  for  Justification, 
was  also  so  remarkable  for  the  introduction  of  all  the 
other  chief  corruptions  of  Romanism,  such  as  the 
full  doctrine  of  image  worship^  as  now  established, 
that  of  transuhstantiation,  of  purgatory,  of  indulgen- 
ces, &c. ;  and  since  the  very  men  w^ho  were  foremost 
in  the  former,  were  also  eminently  distinguished  as 
patrons  of  the  latter,  as  Aquinas  and  Bonaventura, 
(the  latter,  the  chief  devotee  of  the  Virgin  Mary,) 
what  are  we  to  anticipate  from  the  introduction  of 
precisely  the  same  doctrine  of  Justification  among 
Protestants?  Is  its  natural  strength  abated?  Call 
it  by  a  Protestant,  or  a  Romish  name,  set  it  up  at 
Oxford,  or  at  Trent,  is  it  not  the  same ;  the  old 


'  Keble's  Ed.  of  Hooker,  vol.  ii.  p.  702. 


132 


righteousness  of  the  Scribes  and  Pharisees,  and  as 
able  as  ever,  to  lead  men  to  go  about  establishing 
their  own  righteousness,  not  submitting  themselves 
to  the  righteousness  of  God?"  The  light  abroad  may 
face  it  down ;  the  barrier  around,  of  better  princi- 
ples, may  hedge  it  in.  But  can  it  live  now  in  a 
Protestant  land,  without  having,  and  exerting,  and 
manifesting  those  same  old  tendencies,  especially 
upon  such  as  shall  receive  it  at  second  or  third  hand, 
from  its  original  propagators  ?  The  present  aspect 
of  the  Oxford  system,  so  far  as  its  practical  develop- 
ments have  had  room  and  time  to  appear,  answer 
impressively.  No.  There  is  enough  in  what  has  al- 
ready appeared,  as  will  appear  more  fully  by  and  by, 
to  show  that  the  strong  tendency  is  now  precisely  as 
it  was  in  the  days  of  the  Schoolmen;  more  restrained 
indeed  by  circumstances — more  refined  in  its  tastes, 
by  higher  intellectual  culture;  but  strongly  bent,  as 
of  old,  upon  the  taking  of  its  doctrine  from  man's  wis- 
dom, to  the  serious  disparagement  of  the  authority  of 
Scripture,  and  to  the  introduction,  though  under  bet- 
ter pretension,  and  a  more  attractive  type,  of  divers 
overt  corruptions  of  Romanism.  This  tendency 
seems  to  be  at  present  quite  as  strong  and  active, 
and  is  doing  its  work  quite  as  fast,  consideri?ig  the 
differences  of  age  and  circumstances,  as  in  the  days 
of  Aquinas, 

We  are  very  far  from  meaning  that  Dr.  Pusey, 
Mr.  Newman,  &c.,  are  conscious  of  all  this  tendency, 
or  see  all  the  way  in  which  they  are  being  led  in  the 
wilderness  they  have  entered  upon.  We  have  no 
expectation  that  they  will  ever  get  to  the  full  advo- 
cating of  Image  worship.  Purgatory,  &c.    W^e  speak 


133 


of  the  tendency  of  their  sijstem.  It  has  weaker  minds, 
and  more  unfixed  hearts,  and  incautious  heads,  and 
reckless  hands  than  theirs  to  ^vork  on.  A  genera- 
tion of  unfledged  disciples  is  to  swarm  around  the 
Master  of  the  Sentences  and  suck  honey  and  poison 
out  of  his  flowers,  choosing  which  they  please ;  un- 
folding principles  which  the  Master  left  in  hud  ;  ap- 
plying principles  which  the  Master  left  in  abstract; 
marching  boldly  and  proudly,  where  he  feared  to  tread 
but  slowly  and  humbly;  mounting  upon  his  shoul- 
ders, and  therefore  reaching  higher,  and  seeing  fur- 
ther into  reserved  mysteries,  than  he.  Tlmj  may 
reach  a  doctrine  of  Romanism,  from  that  height, 
which  he  thought  not  of  aspiring  to.  They  may  see 
by  his  aid  a  need  and  a  reason  and  a  fitness  in  Image- 
Worship,  and  Purgatory,  (Sec,  which  he  did  not 
dream  of  What  the  Master  would  revolt  at,  the 
School  may  boast  of  There  is  such  a  thing  as  grow- 
ing wiser  than  our  Teachers.  "  Transubstantiation 
(says  Dr.  Pusey)  was  at  first  connected  with  high 
and  reverential  feeling  for  our  Lord,  and  no  one  could 
have  anticipated  beforehand  that  this  one  error 
would  have  had  effects  so  tremendous."  True — and 
this  error  of  Justification  maybe  connected  with  rev- 
erential feeling  of  no  little  depth,  and  yet  who  knows 
what  desolating  consequences  may  ensue  therefrom? 
''Let  us  fear!'' 

As  we  have  found  a  striking  resemblance  in  Ox- 
ford Divinity  to  the  mystic  and  subtle  doctrine  of 
Romanism  in  the  13th  Century,  it  may  not  be  out  of 
place  before  closing  this  chapter  to  point  out  its  re- 
semblance to  v/hat  is  much  supposed,  we  think  with- 
out reason,  to  have  been  the  opposite  extreme  to  Ro- 


134 


manism,  viz.  the  mysticism  of  the  early  Quahers.  Few 
things,  would  seem,  at  first  sight,  more  unnatural 
than  to  associate  Mr.  Newman  and  Thomas  Aquinas, 
with  Robert  Barclay  and  William  Penn;  but  mysti- 
cism is  a  feature  common  to  them  all — the  fog  in 
which,  unknowing  and  unknown,  they  all  row  one 
way,  and  meet  at  last  at  the  very  Ostia  Tiherina,  on 
which  Barclay  supposed,  and  Mr.  Newman  is  con- 
fident he  has  turned  his  back.  Strange  meetings 
often  occur  in  a  mist.  Besides,  there  is  no  knowing 
in  what  company  a  man  may  find  himself  who  goes 
much  abroad.  A  disciple  of  Penn  once  went  to 
Rome  to  convert  the  Pope.  But  the  Pope  converted 
the  disciple  of  Penn.  "  The  light  within,''  of  the  lat- 
ter, was  no  new  light  to  Romanism.  In  that  great 
monastery,  are  many  cells,  furnishing  accommoda- 
tions for  any  sort  of  idiosyncracy,  so  that  it  will  only 
accommodate  itself  to  the  general  rales  and  interests 
of  the  fraternity.  But  to  the  likeness  between  Ox- 
fordism  and  the  Quakerism  of  Penn  and  Barclay. 

^'By  this  holy  Birth,  to  wit,  Jesus  Christ  formed 
within  us,  (says  Barclay)  and  working  his  work  in 
us,  as  we  are  sanctified,  so  are  we  justified  in  the  sight 
of  God'' — Apol  prop.  1 .  p.  364. 

"By  the  light,  which  they  (the  Quakers)  call  the 
Spirit,  the  Grace,  the  Word  of  God,  Christ  within, 
the  flesh  and  hlood  of  Christ  which  came  down  from 
heaven,  they  do  not  mean  Hhe  Essence  and  Nature  of 
God  precisely  tahen.'  They  make  it  a  distinct  and 
separate  thing  from  man's  soul  and  all  its  faculties.'^ 
Mr.  Barclay  says,  with  Mr.  Knox,  ''we  know  it  to  be 
a  substance;"  with  Mr.  Newman,  ^^hy  this  seed  (the 
Christ  within)  we  understand  a  spiritual,  heavenly, 


135 


and  inmsihU  yrincipley  a  real  sjnritual  substance,  in 
which  God.  as  Father,  Son  and  Spirit,  d /veils.'' — Ben- 
net  on  Quakerism,  pp.  Ill,  112,  113. 

"  Though  the  light  jvithin,  is  by  them  supposed  to 
be  the  immediate  efficient  cause  of  Justification,  yet 
they  believe  the  sacrifice  of  our  Saviour,  through 
nhose  obedience  and  sufferings  the  Light  is  purchased, 
that  thereby  this  birth,  (by  which  we  become  regene- 
rate, sanctified,  justified,  &c.)  might  be  brought  forth 
in  us;  I  say,  they  believe  the  sacrifice  of  Christ  to 
be  (what  we  may  call)  the  meritorious  cause  thereof." 
But,  says  Mr.  Barclay,  "not  so  as  to  exclude  the  real 
worth  of  the  woi'k  and  sufferings  of  Christ  ix  us.'' 
They  do  therefore  (says  Bennett)  attribute  a  real 
worth,  1.  to  the  work  of  the  Light  shining  in  them, 
and  bringing  forth  righteousness — 2.  to  the  sufferings 
of  Christ  in  them.  For  he  being  united  to  such  as 
resist  not  the  Light,  is  said  to  suffer,  when  any  evil 
is  inflicted  on  them — 3.  to  the  Intercession  of  Christ, 
that  is,  to  his  intercession  within  them,  by  the  Light's 
stirring,  moving  and  enabling  them  to  pray  unto 
God.  For  my  Author  (Barclay)  distinguishes  this 
intercession  of  the  ^^xioMY,  from  his  intercession  with- 
out us  in  heaven.''' — Bennet,  125,  126. 

The  cross  set  up  within  was  a  favourite  expression 
of  the  Quakers.  To  this,  the  Quakers  ascribed  the 
formed  cause  of  Justification,  as  well  as  Sanctifica- 
tion.  "It  is  by  this  inward  birth  of  Christ  in  man 
(said  Barclay)  that  man  is  made  just,  and  therefore 
so  accounted  by  God.  Wherefore,  to  be  plain,  we 
are  thereby,  and  not  till  that  be  brought  forth  in  us, 
formally  (if  we  must  use  that  word)  justified  in  the 
sight  of  God.    Because  Justification  is  both  more 


136 


properly  and  frequently  in  Scripture  taken  in  its  sig- 
nification for  making  one  just,  and  not  reputing  one 
merely  such,  and  is  all  one  with  Sanctification." — 
Bennet,  p.  168. 

Wilham  Penn  maintained,  just  as  Romish  and 
Oxford  Divines,  that  the  remission  of  sins,  in  the 
case  of  a  sinner  first  turning  to  God,  is  only  for  the 
merits  of  Christ,  but  like  them  also  he  made  the 
ground  of  subsequent  acceptance  to  be  an  inherent 
righteousness,  and  like  Oxford  divines  he  was  charged 
with  Popery  for  it,  and  he  vindicates  himself  pre- 
cisely as  they  do.  "We  would  provide  (he  says) 
against  the  malice  of  those  who  rank  us  among  the 
Papists  as  pleading  for  the  merit  of  Good  Works. 
For  we  lay  not  this  second  sort  of  Justification  (pre- 
cisely what  is  called  second  in  Romanism)  and  much 
less  the  first,  upon  any  exterior  works— as  merely 
exterior,  be  they  acts  of  Justice,  Mercy,  Charity  or 
such  like;  but  upon  the  holy  working  of  God's  power 
and  Spirit  in  the  heart,  and  the  creature's  believing 
it  and  resigning  himself  up  unto  God,  to  be  by  him 
renewed,  ordered,  &c.  So  our  wills  thus  daily  sub- 
mitted to  the  holy  will  of  God,  which  is  Sanctifica- 
tion, is  the  ground  of  our  daily  acceptance  with  God, 
and  being  received  (not  as  just  by  the  non-imputa- 
tion of  sins  formerly  committed,  for  that  alone  de- 
pends on  Repentance  and  Faith  in  God's  free  love 
to  remit;  but)  as  just  by  hei7ig  actually  and  really 
made  so  through  the  participation  of  the  Jtcst  and 
Righteous  Nature  of  Christ.''^ 

The  mysticism  of  the  early  Quakers  of  the  ancient 


'  Penn's  Quakerism  a  new  nick-name  for  Old  Christianity,  1672.  p.  155,  156. 


137 


Schoolmen,  and  of  the  present  Schoolmen  of  Oxford, 
is  just  about  the  same  thing,  allowing  for  modifica- 
tions arising  out  of  varieties  of  learning,  and  of  gene- 
ral circumstances. 

We  are  aware  that  for  a  long  time  the  Mystics  and 
the  Schoolmen,  of  the  dark  ages,  were  at  swords' 
points ;  but  under  the  melting  rays  of  the  Angelic 
Doctor,  they  coalesced,  so  that  the  Schoolmen  be- 
came commentators  on  Dionysius,  the  great  chief  of 
the  Mystics,  as  upon  Peter  Lombard,  the  Grand 
Master  of  the  Scholastics.  Here  also,  "  Thomas 
Aquinas,  (says  Mosheim,)  shone  forth,  as  a  star  of  the 
first  magnitude,  though  like  the  others,  he  was  often 
covered  with  impenetrable fogsP^ 

1  Eccl.  Hist.,  Cent.  xiii.  C.  iii.      ix.  xx. 


18 


CHAPTER  V. 


THE  DOCTRINE  OF  OXFORD  DIVINITY,  AS  TO  THE  RIGHTEOUSNESS  OF 
JUSTIFICATION,  COMPARED  WITH  THAT  OF  THE  COUNCIL  OF 
TRENT. 

Recapitulation — Language  of  the  Council  of  Trent — Stale  of  the  Question  at 
the  Reformation,  and  now,  from  ('hemnitz,  Jackson,  Hall,  Usher,  Hooker — 
Holiness  required  at  least  as  much  by  Protestants  as  Romanists — Oxford  in- 
terpretation of  single  passages  of  Scripture,  compared  with  those  of  Romish 
divines — Three  particulars  in  which  Oxford  divines  claim  to  be  regarded  as 
not  confornied  to  Romanism — These  considered,  and  shown  to  make  such 
conformity  the  more  obvious — The  vindication  drawn  from  the  Romish  claim 
of  merit,  answered — Hooker's  argument  against  the  Romish  doctrine  of 
merit,  shown  to  he  applicable,  in  the  same  way,  to  Oxfordism — Concluding 
remarks. 

Before  proceeding  to  an  exhibition  of  the  doctrine 
of  the  Church  of  Rome,  as  at  present  established,  the 
reader  is  requested  to  bear  in  mind,  that  in  making 
out  the  doctrine  of  Oxford  Divinity,  the  following 
prominent  features  were  made  to  appear — viz  : 

1.  That  the  righteousness  by  which  w^e  are  justi- 
fied, before  God,  is  exclusively  internal  and  infused, 
a  righteousness  7vithin  us,  inwrought  by  the  Holy 
Ghost. 

2.  That  by  the  acknow^ledgment  and  strong  asser- 
tion of  Mr.  Newman,  this  justifying  righteousness  is 
"  really  one!''  with  Inherent  righteousness,  or  Sanctifi- 
cation^  so  that  the  terms  are  convertible; — the  dis- 
tinction afterwards  attempted,  instead  of  showing 
any  difference,  only  making  the  identity  the  more 
certain,  by  its  purely  imaginary  character,  and  ren- 


140 

dering  the  sameness  of  the  whole  doctrine  with  that 
of  Romanism  only  the  more  certain. 

3.  That  the  regenerate  can,  and  do,  so  fulfil  the 
Law  that  their  indwelling  righteousness,  has  in  it  a 
satisfying  and  justifying  quality,  and  does  satisfy  and 
justify  them  before  God. 

4.  That  this  justification  is  progressive,  increasing 
and  decreasing  according  to  the  degree  of  Sanctifica- 
tion. 

We  now  proceed  to  show  that  such  are  precisely 
those  characteristic  features  of  the  present  established 
doctrine  of  Rome,  against  which  the  Reformation  was 
directed,  and  which  our  ancient  and  standard  writers 
considered,  without  question,  as  constituting  the 
middle  wall  of  partition,  so  far  as  Justification  is  con- 
cerned, between  Protestants  and  the  Church  of  Rome. 

In  ascertaining  the  present  doctrine  of  Rome,  the 
decisions  of  Trent  must  be  considered  as  of  sure 
authority.  The  decrees  of  that  Council,  it  is  true, 
so  far  as  they  relate  to  Discipline,  have  not,  in  all 
countries,  been  implicitly  obeyed  by  Romanists.  In 
France,  for  instance,  the  Galilean  Church  has  been 
opposed  to  the  decrees  on  Discipline.  But  not  so  as 
to  those  relating  to  Doctrine,  which  are  universally 
received  by  such  as  profess  the  Romish  faith. ^ 

From  Canon  vii.  Sess.  vi.,  and  from  Canon  xvi. 
we  make  the  following  extracts. 

"Justification  is  not  merely  the  remission  of  sins,  but  also  Sane- 
tificalion  and  renewal  of  the  inward  man,  by  his  voluntary  recep- 
tion of  grace  and  gifts.  Whence  a  man  becomes  righteous  from  un- 
righteous, a  friend  of  God  for  an  enemy,  so  as  to  be  an  heir  accord- 


1  See  Marsh's  Comparative  View  of  the  Churches  of  England  and  Rome, 
c.  ii.  §  iv. 


141 


ing  to  the  hope  of  eternal  life,  and  the  confimunication  of  the  merits 
of  the  Passion  of  our  Lord  Jesus  Christ." 

After  saying  that  the  meritorious  cause  of  Justifica- 
tion is  Christ,  the  Council  proceed  to  declare  that 

"  The  only /orwa/ cause  is  God's  justice,  not  by  which  he  hinnself 
is  just,  but  by  which  he  makes  us  just,  wherewith  being  endowed 
by  him,  we  are  renewed  in  the  spirit  of  our  minds,  and  are  not  only 
reputed,  but  are  made,  truly  just. ^"^ 

"  Thus,  neither  our  own  proper  righteousness  is  so  determined  to 
be  our  own,  as  if  it  were  from  ourselves ;  nor  is  the  righteousness 
of  God  either  unknown  or  rejected.  For  that  which  is  called  our 
righteousness,  because,  through  its  being  inherent  in  us,  we  are 
justified  ;  that  same  is  the  Righteousness  of  God,  because  it  is  infused 
into  us  by  God,  through  the  merit  of  Christ." 

Now  what  was  the  interpretation  which  the  Re- 
formers, soon  after  the  issuing  of  these  decrees  put 
upon  them?  Chemnitz,  a  Lutheran  divine,  who 
lived  in  the  time  of  the  Council,  and  wrote  a  refuta- 
tion of  its  doctrines,  which  all  Protestants,  as  w^ell  in 
the  Church  of  England,  as  on  the  Continent,  re- 
garded as  of  eminent  value,  and  whom  Bellarmine 
treats  as  high  authority,  on  the  Protestant  side,  thus 
states,  in  that  work,  the  great  question  between  Pro- 
testants and  Romanists,  and  how  the  Council  an- 
swered it.  ''What  is  that  which  we  are  to  interpose 
between  the  anger  of  God  and  our  sins,  so  that  on 
account  thereof,  we  may  be  absolved  from  condem- 
nation, and  received  to  everlasting  life.  The  de- 
crees of  Trent  respond  in  two  ways.  1.  They  deny 
that  Justification  is  merely  the  Remission  of  Sins ; 
and  they  anathematise  any  that  shall  say  that  a  man 
is  justified  by  the  imputation  of  Christ's  Righteous- 
ness only,  or  only  by  the  remission  of  sins,  or  by  the 
mere  favour  of  God.    2.  They  affirm  that  Justifica- 


142 


tion  before  God,  to  eternal  life,  is  not  remission  of 
sins  alone,  but  the  sanctijication  of  the  inner  man; 
and  they  affirm  that  the  only  formal  cause  of  Justifi- 
cation, is  that  righteousness  given  to  us,  of  God,  by 
which  we  are  renen'cd  in  the  spirit  of  our  mind,  and 
are  not  only  reputed,  but  are  made  truly  righteous ; 
this  righteousness  in  us,  they  say  is  charity,  inhe- 
rent in  us,  which,  by  the  Holy  Spirit,  is  wrought  in 
us,  through  the  merit  of  the  passion  of  Christ,"^ 

Dr.  Jackson,  an  eminent  divine,  of  Oxford,  in  the 
seventeenth  century,  states  the  issue  as  follows,  viz : 

The  point  then  in  which,  with  him,  (the  Romanist) 
we  must  join  issue  is;  What  should  be  the  true, 
immediate,  and  next  cause  of  this  final  absolution 
from  the  sentence  of  death?  aught  within  us, 
or  SOMEWHAT  WITHOUT  US?  We  deny,  he  affirms, 
righteousness  inherent  to  be  such  an  absolute  cause 
of  absolution  or  remission  of  sins,  of  Justification  how- 
soever taken.  Christ's  righteousness  they  grant  to 
be  the  efficient  or  meritorious  cause  for  which,  not 
the  formal  cause  hy  which  our  sins  are  remitted,  or 
we  are  justified.  He  alone  is  formally  just,  which 
hath  that  form  inherent  in  himself,  by  w^hich  he  is 
denominated  just,  and  so  accepted  with  God;  as 
Philosophers  deny  the  sun  to  be  formally  tiot,  be- 
cause it  hath  no  form  of  heat  inherent  in  it,  but  only 
produceth  heat  in  other  bodies.  To  be  formally, 
just,  we,  for  these  reasons,  attribute  only  unto  Christ, 
who  alone  hath  such  righteousness  in  himself,  as  by 
the  interposition  of  it  between  God's  Justice  and  sin- 


'  Chemnitz's  Examen.  Dec.  Cone.  Trid.  p.  144.  Bp.  Hali  speaks  of  him  as 
*•  our  learned  Chemuitius." 


143 


ful  flesh,  doth  stop  the  proceedings  of  his  Judgment." ' 
How  the  Judicious  Hooker  delineates  what  he 
calls  that  grand  question  which  hangeth  yet  in  con- 
troversy between  us  and  the  Church  of  Rome,  the 
reader  is  requested  to  review  in  pages  19 — 21  of  our 
first  Chapter. 

Bishop  Hall  describes  the  difference  between  us 
and  Rome,  as  follows : 

"What  can  be  more  contrary  than  these  opinions  to  each  other. 
The  Papists  make  this  inherent  righteousness  the  cause  of  our  Justi- 
fication :  the  Protestants,  the  effect  thereof.  The  Protestants  require 
it  as  the  companion  or  page :  the  Papists,  as  the  usher,  yea,  rather 
as  the  parent  of  Justification."  ^ 

"  The  question,  (says  Usher,)  betwee^i;  us  and  them  is,  whether 
there  be  any  Justification  besides  Sanclification  ;  that  is,  whether 
there  be  any  Justification  at  all?  We  say  Sanctification  is  wrought 
by  the  Kingly  ofiice  of  Christ.  He  is  a  King  who  rules  in  our 
hearts,  subdues  our  corruptions,  by  the  sceptre  of  his  word  and 
Spirit;  but  it  is  the  point  of  his  Priestly  Ofiice,  which  the  Church  of 
Rome  strikes  at ;  that  is,  whether  Christ  hath  reserved  another 
righteousness  for  us,  besides  that  which  as  a  King,  he  works  in  our 
hearts ;  whether  he  hath  wrought  forgiveness  of  sins  for  us?  we  say 
he  hath,  and  so  said  all  the  Church,  till  the  spawn  of  the  Jesuits 
arose."^ 

From  the  high  authority  of  the  Authors  we  have 
now  cited,  it  is  unquestionable  that,  whatever  other 
points  may  be  connected  subordinately  with  the  con- 
troversy between  the  Church  of  Rome,  and  the  Re- 
formed Church  of  England,  as  to  Justification,  the 
main  question,  and  that,  therefore,  with  reference  to 
which  our  Article  of  Justification  and  its  explicating 
Homilies  were  framed,  was  simply  whether  we  are 


2  HaU's  Works,  vol.  ix.  p.  46. 


144 


justified  before  God,  by  a  righteousness  external  and 
made  ours  only  by  imputation^  or  by  a  righteousness 
in  us,  and  ours  because  in  us ;  by  infusion,  and  not 
by  iinjnitation.  The  Reformed  Church  of  England, 
like  all  other  Reformed  Churches,  stood  fast  upon 
the  former  ground,  maintaining,  as  Hooker  says, 
that  the  Church  of  Rome,  in  teaching  Justification 
by  inherent  Grace,  doth  pervert  the  truth  of  Christ ^ 

*'The  righteousness  of  Sanctification,  we  deny  not  to  be  inherent, 
only  we  distinguish  it  as  a  thing  different  in  nature,  from  the  righte- 
ousness of  Justification."  "  That  whereby  we  are  justified,  is  per- 
fect, but  not  inherent.  That  whereby  w^e  are  sanctified,  is  inherent 
but  not  perfect."^ 

Between  Romanists  and  us,  there  is  no  difierence 
as  to  the  necessity  of  Holiness,  for  the  kingdom  of 
heaven.  We  preach  Sanctification  at  least  as  much 
as  they,  and  upon  a  much  higher  and  more  effective 
ground.  But  the  relation  of  that  holiness  to  the  jus- 
tification of  the  sinner,  is  the  precise  point  of  dis- 
agreement, the  hinge  of  the  whole  controversy.  By 
the  standards  of  our  Church,  it  is  made  to  follow 
after  Justification,  as  its  fruits,  and  as  evidences  of  a 
Justifying  Faith.  By  the  Church  of  Rome,  it  is 
Justification  itself;  or  at  least  the  ground  of  Justifi- 
cation. 

In  the  last  chapter  of  the  decrees  of  the  Sixth  ses- 
sion of  Trent,  we  read  as  follows : 

*'  Since  Jesus  Christ  as  the  head  into  the  members,  and  as  the  vine 
into  the  branches,  perpetually  causes  his  virtue  to  flow  into  the  justi- 
fied ;  which  virtue  always  precedes  and  accompanies  and  follows 
their  good  works,  and  without  which  they  would  in  no  wise  be  grate- 


'Disc.  of  Justif.  §§  6  and  3. 


145 


ful  to  God  and  meritorious,  we  must  believe,  that  nothing  more  is 

wantinop  to  the  justified  themselves,  which  need  prevent  us  from  think- 
ing, both  that  they  can  satisfy  the  divine  law,  according  to  the  state 
of  this  life,  by  those  works  which  are  performed  in  God  ;  and  that 
in  their  ow  n  limes,  they  may  truly  merit  the  attainment  of  eternal 
life:' 

The  present  writer  sees  no  difference  between 
this  doctrine,  and  that  shown  in  the  last  chapter,  by 
extracts  from  Mr.  Newman. 

Does  Oxford  Divinity  neutralize  the  distinction  of 
two  kinds  of  righteousness,  and  confound  Justifica- 
tion and  Sanctification  ?  So  does  Romanism.  The 
following,  from  Bishop  Downame,  of  the  17th  Cen- 
tury, shows  how  this  feature  of  Popery  was  regarded 
in  the  Church  of  his  day. 

The  first  capital  error  of  the  Papists  is,  that  they 
confound  Justification  and  Sanctification,  and  by 
confoundino^  of  them,  and  of  two  benefits  makinj?  but 
one,  they  utterly  abolish  the  benefit  of  Justification ; 
which  notwithstanding  is  the  principal  benefit,  which 
we  have  by  Christ  in  this  life,  by  which  we  are  freed 
from  hell,  and  entitled  to  the  kingdom  of  heaven. 
And  this  they  do  in  two  respects :  first,  they  hold, 
that  to  justify  in  this  question  signifieth  to  make 
righteous  by  righteousness  inherent,  or  by  infusion 
of  righteousness,  that  is,  to  sanctify.  Secondly,  they 
make  remission  of  sin,  to  be  not  the  pardoning  and  for- 
giving of  sin,  but  the  utter  deletion  or  expulsion  of 
sin  by  infusion  of  righteousness.  Thus  they  make 
Justification  wholly  to  consist  in  the  parts  of  Sancti- 
fication.^ 

Does  Mr.  Newman  declare  that  the  regenerate  or 


19 


'  Downame  on  Justif.  p.  50. 


146 


baptized  can,  and  do  fulfil  the  law ;  that  their  obedi- 
ence has  a  justifying  and  sanctifying  quality  or  virtue ; 
that  divine  love,  in  the  Christian,  is  imputed  to  him 
for  rio-hteousness?"^  The  Council  of  Trent  declares 
that  the  justified,  that  is  the  baptized,  "can  satisfy 
the  divine  law,  according  to  the  state  of  this  life,  by 
those  works  which  are  performed  in  God."  Cardi- 
nal Bellarmine,  in  defending  this  doctrine  of  the 
Council,  contends  that  "they  that  are  able  to  love 
God  and  their  neighbour,  are  also  able  to  fulfil  the 
law  ;  that  notwithstanding  our  charity  in  this  life  is 
imperfect,  because  it  may  be  increased,  yet  that  it 
is  so  perfect  as  may  suffice  for  the  fulfilment  of  the 
Law." 

The  following  comparison  between  the  Papists 
and  Pelagians,  by  Bishop  Downame,  as  to  the  keep- 
ing of  the  Law,  will  show,  not  only  the  Romish  doc- 
trine on  this  head,  but  also  in  what  light  it  was  re- 
garded by  the  great  divines  of  the  English  Church 
before  the  middle  of  the  17th  Century. 

"The  difference  between  the  Pelagians  and  Pa- 
pists is  not  in  respect  of  possibility  or  impossibility, 
but  in  respect  of  greater  or  less  difficulty.  For  the 
Papists  do  not  acknowledge  that  men  by  nature  are 
dead  in  sin,  and  utterly  deprived  of  the  spiritual  life  : 
but  that  they  are  fickle  and  weak,  and  tied  with  the 
bands  of  sin,  so  that  they  cannot  fulfil  the  Law  of 
God,  unless  they  be  holpen  and  loosed  by  grace :  but 
being  holpen  by  grace,  then  the  fulfilling  of  the 
Commandment  is  easy  to  them.  The  Pelagians  like- 
wise confess,  that  by  the  Grace  of  God,  which  they 


>  Pp.  73  «fc  74  of  this  work. 


147 


call  honum  naturce,  or  the  power  or  possibility  of  na- 
ture they  were  enabled  ;  by  tlie  grace  of  God  vouch- 
safed in  his  Word  and  Law,  guided  and  directed ; 
by  the  justifying  grace  of  God  freed  from  the  bond 
of  their  sins;  and  by  the  sanctifying  grace  of  God 
hoi  pen  Vv'ith  more  ease  to  fulfil  the  Commandments 
of  God. 

"  So  that  the  Papists,  although  they  do  not  with  the 
Pelagians  deny  original  sin,  or  the  necessity  of  sav- 
ing grace  :  yet  they  do  extenuate  the  original  corrup- 
tion, and  so  magnify  the  strength  of  nature,  that 
they  differ  not  much  from  them. 

''And  as  touching  the  other  difference ;  though  the 
Papists  hold  that  a  man  cannot  be  without  sin  for 
any  long  time,  though  for  some  short  time  (in  which 
short  time,  if  he  shall  say  he  hath  no  sin,  he  shall 
make  Saint  John,  and  not  himself,  a  liar,  1  John, 
i.  8.)  yet  they  say  they  may  be  without  all  sins  ex- 
cepting those  which  they  call  venial;  which  they  do 
so  extenuate,  that  indeed  they  make  them  no  sins, 
as  being  no  anomies  or  transgressions  of  the  Law 
committed  against  the  Law,  or  repugnant  to  charity, 
but  only  besides  the  Law;  such  as  may  well  stand 
together  with  perfect,  inherent  righteousness.  For 
they  say  he  only  is  a  righteous  man  in  whom  there 
is  no  sin,  and  yet  that  there  is  no  man  so  righteous, 
as  that  he  liveth  without  these  venial  ones.  But  if 
they  be  besides  and  contrary  to  the  Law,  then  they 
are  neither  commanded  nor  forbidden,  and  so  no  sins 
at  all,  but  things  indifferent."^ 

On  the  subject  of  the  increase  and  decrease  of  Jus- 


•  Downame  on  Justification,  pp.  503,  504. 

4 


148 


tification,  according  to  the  degree  of  Sanctification, 
the  Council  of  Trent  pronounces  thus : 

*'If  any  one  shall  say  that  Justification  once  obtained,  is  not  in- 
creased by  good  works,  but  that  these  are  only  the  fruits  and  signs 
of  Justification,  let  him  be  accursed." — c.  xxiv.  Sess.  vi. 

But  Hooker's  statement  of  this  point  of  Romanism 
will  answer  best. 

"The  grace  of  Justification  (he  says)  they  make 
capable  of  increase,  that  as  the  body  may  be  made 
more  and  more  warm,  so  the  soul,  more  and  more 
justified,  according  as  grace  should  be  augmented; 
the  augmentation  whereof  is  merited  by  good  works, 
as  good  works  are  made  meritorious  by  it.  Where- 
fore the  first  receipt  of  grace,  in  their  divinity,  is  the 
first  Justification;  the  increase  thereof,  the  second 
Justification.  As  grace  may  be  increased  by  the 
merit  of  good  works ;  so  it  may  be  diminished  by 
the  demerit  of  sins  venial ;  it  may  be  lost  by  mortal 
sin.  If  they  work  more  and  more,  grace  doth  more 
and  more  increase,  and  they  are  more  and  more  jus- 
tified." This  is  one  of  the  characteristic  features  of 
what  Hooker  at  the  end  of  the  description  calls  "the 
maze  which  the  Church  of  Rome  doth  cause  her  fol- 
lowers to  tread  when  they  ask  her  the  way  to  Justi- 
fication." 

The  reader  may  compare  for  himself  the  Oxford 
Doctrine  as  stated  on  p.  77. 

We  will  now  give  a  specimen  or  two  of  Mr.  New- 
man's interpretation  of  Scripture,  in  comparison  with 
the  Romanist  interpretation. 

*'By  the  deeds  of  the  Law  there  shall  no  flesh  be 
justified  in  His  sight,  for  by  the  law  is  the  knowledge 
of  sin."  Rom.  iii.  20.    That  is,  says  Mr.  N.,  "  by  a 


149 


conformity  to  the  externalldiW,^^  not  an  internal,  shall 
none  be  justified.    Lect.  p.  54. 

But  now  the  righteousness  of  God  without  the 
Law  is  manifested — even  the  righteousness  of  God, 
which  is  by  faith  of  Jesus  Christ  unto  all,  and  upon 
all  them  that  believe."  Rom.  iii.  21,  22. 

"  That  is,  (says  Mr.  N.)  the  7iew  rigliteoumess  intro- 
duced and  wrought  upon  the  heart  by  the  ministra- 
tion of  the  Spirit,"  new  as  distinguished  from  that  of 
the  unconverted  heart.  P.  54. 

Again :  By  grace  ye  are  saved  through  faith,  and 
that  not  of  yourselves,  it  is  the  gift  of  God — not  of 
works,  lest  any  man  should  boast."  Eph.  ii.  8-10. 

'  Not  of  works,'  means  not  of  all  your  works,  but 
only  works  done  in  your  own  unaided  strength,  in 
conformity  to  the  natural  law.  Here  the  difference 
is  marked  between  the  works  of  the  Spirit  which  are 
good,"  (for  justification,)  ''and  those  of  the  Law 
which  are  worthless."  P.  55. 

Again  :  That  I  may  win  Christ  and  be  found  in 
him,  not  having  mine  own  righteousness,  which  is  of 
the  law,  but  that  which  is  through  the  faith  of  Christ, 
the  righteousness  which  is  of  God  by  faith."  Phil, 
iii.  8,  9. 

It  is  maintained  by  Mr.  Newman  that  the  righte- 
ousness of  the  Law,  which  Paul  renounced,  is  the 
righteousness  or  obedience  "  done  in  his  own  strength 
before  faith,  and  without  grace ;"  and  the  righteous- 
ness which  he  desired  to  have  in  its  place  was  a 
new  righteousness,  consisting  in  obedience  and  in 
faith,  and  by  the  grace  of  Christ,"  p.  128.  "If  legal 
righteousness  is  of  a  moral  nature,  (he  asks,)  why 
should  not  the  righteousness  of  faith  be  moral  also  ?" 
p.  53. 


150 


Now  it  will  be  shown,  by  and  by,  that  all  this  is 

directly  the  reverse  and  in  entire  denial  of  the  in- 
terpretation, most  confidently  and  solemnly  put  upon 
these  and  the  like  passages,  by  such  standard  writers 
of  our  Church,  as  Hall,  Beveridge,  Usher,  Reynolds, 
Andre wes,  Hooker,  &c.  But  the  present  point  is 
here,  viz :  that  while  in  entire  departure  from  the 
doctrine  of  those  great  divines,  they  are  identical 
with  the  interpretation  of  Romanist  leaders. 

Chemnitz  sums  up  the  interpretation  given  by 
Andrada,  a  distinguished  member  and  defender  of 
the  Council  of  Trent,  as  follows  : 

"Andrada  contends  that  both  kinds  of  righteousness  spoken  of  by 
St.  Paul,  the  righteousness  of  the  law  and  of  faith,  consist  in  our 
obedience  to  the  law,  and  that  they  differ  not  in  office,  but  only  in 
the  manner  of  their  office,  so  that  when  one  is  rendered  by  the  un- 
regenerate,  then  it  is  the  righteousness  of  the  law;  but  the  righteous- 
ness of  faith  consists  in  this,  that  it  leads  the  regenerate  to  the  obe- 
dience of  those  things  which  are  written  in  the  law — so  that  the 
righteousness  is  the  obedience  itself,  of  the  regenerate  to  the  law, 
when  love  which  embraces  the  whole  law  is  poured  into  those  who 
believe  by  the  Holy  Ghost."^ 

Now,  after  all  this  marvellous  conformity  of  Ox- 
ford divinity,  to  that  of  Rome,  the  reader  is  doubtless 
ready  to  enquire  with  amazement,  what  defence  do 
they  set  up?  Dr.  Pusey  publishes  a  work  purposely 
in  answer  to  the  charge  of  a  Tendency  to  Roman- 
ism f  he  draws  his  answer,  in  a  great  degree,  from 
Mr.  Newman.  What  is  the  defence?  Where  do 
they  find  their  distinction? 

After  searching  again  and  again,  the  writer  can 
discover  nothing  that  is  pretended  to  as  constituting 
a  characteristic  difference,  but  the  three  following 
allegations. 


'  Chemnitz  Examen.  Dec.  Cone.  Tred.,  p.  148. 


151 


1.  That  Romanists  make  the  infused  and  indwell- 
ing righteousness  by  which  we  are  justified,  equality 
or  hahit  of  the  mind,  and  thus  the  same  as  Sanctifica- 
tion;  while  in  Oxford  Divinity,  it  is  not  a  quality, 
but  that  which  includes  in  it  all  the  quaUties  and 
virtues  of  holiness;  a  righteousness  '^within  us,  but 
not  of  us  or  in  us,"  "a  divine  gift,"  ''a  principle," 
but  not  a  quality  of  our  minds. 

But  it  has  been  abundantly  showed,  that  Oxford 
divinity  does  make,  and  does  positively  assert,  though 
it  afterwards  denies,  that  righteousness  to  be  a  quality, 
identical  with  sanctif  cation  ;  that  when  it  attempts  a 
distinction,  that  distinction  is  a  mere  scholastic  fig- 
ment, which,  as  it  is  precisely  the  same  as  that  in- 
vented by  the  Schoolmen,  to  whom  the  Council  of 
Trent  resorted  for  its  doctrine,  only  shows  the  more 
perfectly  the  identity  between  Romanism,  and  the 
divinity  in  question;  and  again,  that  whether  the 
distinction  be  good  or  bad,  it  is  just  as  admissible  in 
Romanism  as  in  Oxfordism;  the  Council  of  Trent 
having,  by  Mr.  Newman's  own  showing,  forborne  to 
decide  the  point;  so  that,  whether  the  righteousness 
of  Justification  be  a  quality  or  not,  is  not  a  point 
de  fide  in  the  Church  of  Rome. 

So  much  for  one  of  the  three  lines  of  demarca- 
tion. 

2.  Another  is  found  in  this,  that  in  one  of  the 
Canons  of  Trent,  it  is  declared,  that  "Inherent 
righteousness  is  the  only  formal  cause  of  Justifica- 
tion^^—  Unica  Formalis  causa  Justificationis.^  This 


1  That  is  called  a  formal  cause  of  Justification,  in  Romish  Divinity,  which 
contains  that,  in  itself,  which  causes  the  person  to  be  denominated  just  or 


152 


is  stated  to  be  a  doctrine  of  "high"  Romanism,  from 
which  Oxford  Divinity  dissents.  Mr.  Newman 
maintains  two  formal  causes,  proper  and  improper. 
"  The  proper  formal  cause,  rvitk  the  Romanists,  I 
would  consider,  (he  says,)  as*  an  inward  gift,  yet 
with  the  Protestants,  not  a  quality  of  the  mindr^ 

But  what  is  the  other  formal  cause;  The  Im- 
proper ?  The  difference  of  the  latter,  from  the  former, 
is  expressed  in  the  following  passage :  "We  are  made 
absolutely  acceptable  to  God  through  the  propitiatory 
indwelling  His  Son,"  {the  cross  ?vithin,)  yet  are  not 
without  the  beginnings  of  inherent  accept ahleness 
wrought  in  us  hy  that  indwellings^  The  indrvelling 
of  Christ,  elsewhere  called  the  justifying  "principle" 
and  ^'gift,"  is  here  \h.e  proper  formal  cause;  the  "ac- 
ceptableness"  or  holiness  wrought  in  us  by  that  di- 
vine gift,  is  the  improper  formal  cause;  both  in  us; 
both  inherent ;  both  uniting  in  the  completion  of  our 
Justification  ? 

Now  where  is  the  difference  between  these  two? 
Nothing  more  than  the  shadowy  figment  by^which, 
as  we  have  before  seen,  Mr.  Newman,  like  the 
Schoolmen  of  old,  tries  to  distinguish  between  an 
indwelling  divine  gift  of  righteousness,  and  Sanctifi- 
cation.  As  we  cannot  admit  such  a  distinction,  we 
must  deny  that  his  two  formal  causes  are  else  than 


righteous.  "  He  alone  is  formaVy  just  whicii  hath  that  inherent  in  himself,  by 
which  he  is  denominated  just,  and  so  accepted  of  God;  as  Philosophers  deny 
the  sun  to  be  formally  hot,  because  it  hath  no  form  of  heat  inherent  in  it,  but 
only  produceth  heat  in  other  bodies." — Jackson's  Works,  vol.  i.  p.  755. 

1  Lect.  p.  426.  2  Here  again  it  is  indicated,  that  the  Romanists  do  not 

make  it  a  quality,  whereas  by  his  own  showing  they  have  left  the  point  unset- 
tled. sLect.  p.  428. 


153 


one  and  the  same;  and  that  his  doctrine  and  the 
unica  formalis  causa  of  Trent,  are  in  any  wise  dis- 
tinct.' 

But  strange!  While  he  maintains  that  Romanism 
is  distinguished  by  the  doctrine  that  inherent  righte- 
ousness is  the  ONLY  formal  cause,  he  expressly  refers 
to  Romanists  as  admitting  two,  precisely  as  he  does. 
*'It  would  seem,  (he  writes,)  as  if  there  were  two 
formal  causes  of  justification  admitted  by  Romanists, 
love  or  inlierent  righteousness,  and  grace  or  the  pre- 
sence o^the  Holy  Spirit' s  indwelling''"' 

We  conclude  then  that  here,  as  elsewhere,  there 
is  no  difference  at  all  between  the  Oxford  doctrine, 
and  that  of  Rome.  The  attempted  distinction  be- 
tween two  formal  causes  is  just  as  admissible  on  one 
side  as  the  other,  and  has  no  reality  with  either.  Let 


•  The  decree  of  Trent  is  as  follows  :  Unica  formalis  causa,  est  justitia  Dei, 
non  qua  ipse  Justus  est,  sed  qua  nos  justos  facit,  qua  videlicet  ab  eo  donata,  re- 
novamur  Spiritu  mentis  nostri,  et  non  modo  reputamur,  sed  vere  justi  nomi- 
namur.  "  The  only  formal  cause  (of  Justification)  is  the  righteousness  of 
God ;  not  that  by  which  he  himself  is  righteous,  but  that  by  which  he  makes 
us  righteous;  that  is  to  say,  by  which  we  being  endowed  by  him,  are  renewed 
in  the  spirit  of  our  mind,  and  are  not  only  reputed  righteous,  but  are  truly 
righteous."  The  Council  proceeds  to  add  :  Quanquam  nemo  possit  esse  Justus 
nisi  cui  merita  passionis  Jesu  Christi  communicantur,  id  tamen  in  hac  justifica- 
tione  impii  fit  dum,  ejusdem  sanctissimoe  passionis  merito;  per  Spiritum  Sanctum, 
charitas  Dei  diflunditur  in  Cordibus  eorum,  qui  Justificantur.  "  Since  none 
can  be  justified  but  those  to  whom  the  merits  of  the  passion  of  Christ  are  com- 
municated, yet  that  communication  takes  place  in  the  Justification  of  the  ungodly^ 
when,  by  the  merit  of  that  most  holy  passion,  the  love  of  God  is  shed  abroad, 
by  the  Holy  Ghost,  in  the  hearts  of  the  Justified." — Concil.  Trident,  sess.  vi. 
c.  vii. 

In  these  expressions  is  contained  the  whole  of  Mr.  Newman's  formal  causa- 
tion.  Whether  he  be  the  more  accurate  in  making  two  formal  causes,  or  the 
Council  in  making  both,  one,  the  learned  in  disputes  of  words,  may  determine. 

2  Lectures,  p.  399. 
20 


154 


us  hear  then  Dr.  Jackson,  whom  we  Uke  to  quote  on 
such  matters,  because  of  his  bearing  so  high  a  name 
at  Oxford,  just  now.^  His  words  are  quite  as  appli- 
cable to  one  party  as  the  other. 

"Our  adversaries  in  that  they  acknowledge  inherent  righteousness 
to  be  the  sole  formal  cause  of  Justification,  do,  by  the  same  assertion, 
necessarily  grant  it  to  be  the  true  imnfiediate  cause  of  remission  of 
sins,  of  absolution  from  death,  and  admission  to  life.  This  is  the 
only  point  from  ivhich  they  cannot  start;  at  which,  neverthe- 
less, while  they  stand,  they  may  acknowledge  Christ  born  in  the 
flesh,  crucified,  dead  and  buried,  or  perhaps  ascended  into  heaven, 
but  deny,  they  do,  the  power  of  his  sitting  at  the  right  hand  of  God, 
the  virtue  of  his  mediation  or  intercession,  and  more  than  half 
evacuate  the  eternity  of  his  Priesthood."^ 

The  Reader  is  requested  to  compare  the  last  sen- 
tence with  the  extract  from  Usher,  on  page  143. 

3.  The  last  of  the  three  particulars,  in  which  Dr. 
Pusey  and  Mr.  Newman  attempt  to  show  a  difference 
between  their  doctrine  and  that  of  Rome,  is  in  the 
matter  of  imputation,  as  follows : 

"Justification,"  "is  not  imputation  merely."  "In  this  I  con- 
ceive to  lie  the  Unity  of  the  Catholic  doctrine,  that  we  are  saved  by 
Christ's  imputed  righteousness,  and  by  our  own  inchoate  (inceptive) 
righteousness  at  once."^  But  more  at  large  as  follows.  "  Our  di- 
vines, though  of  very  different  schools,  have,  with  a  very  few  ex- 
ceptions, agreed  in  this,  that  justification  is  gained  by  obedience  in 
the  shape  of  faith ;  that  is,  an  obedience  which  confesses  it  is  not 
sufficient,  and  trusts  solely  in  Christ's  merits,  for  acceptance,  which 


'  We  have  before  quoted  this  truly  learned  divine — an  Oxford  man,  of  great 
eminence  in  his  day — but  that  day  was  the  day  of  the  giants  in  the  controversy 
with  Rome.  Usher,  Hall,  Andrewes,  &c.,were  his  contemporaries.  It  is  said 
(by  the  British  Critic)  that  his  works  have  risen  wonderfully  in  the  Oxford 
market  since  the  new  divinity  began,  showing  that  his  authority  is  acknow- 
ledged by  that  side  to  be  of  great  weight.    We  shall  find  use  for  him  hereafter. 

2  Jackson's  Works,  vol.  i.  pp.  755,  756,  3  Lectures,  p.  414. 


155 


is  in  other  words  the  doctrine  of  two  righteousnesses,  perfect  and  im^ 
perfect ;  not  the  Roman,  that  obedience  justifies  without  a  continual 
imputation  of  Christ's  merits;  nor  the  Protestant,  that  imputation 
justifies  distinct  from  obedience;  but  a  middle  way  that  obedience 
justifies  in,  or  under  Christ's  Covenant,  or  sprinkled  with  Christ's 
meritorious  sacrifice." — p.  420. 

Now,  all  this,  at  first  siglit,  has  the  appearance  of 
something  like  the  Gospel.  Here  are  "  tjvo  righte- 
ousnesses,*' whereas  Mr.  Newman  has  before  ex- 
pressly said,  that  such  a  distinction  is  unscriptural. 
But,  on  examination,  it  will  appear  that  a  change  of 
language  is  the  only  difference  from  all  that  has  gone 
before,  and  that  still  the  doctrine  is  in  no  sense  dis- 
tinct from  that  of  Rome. 

We  have  before  shown,  that  because  these  writers 
can  screw  the  word  imputed  into  their  system,  w^e 
are  not  to  suppose  that  it  means,  in  their  use,  any 
thinsT  like  what  it  stands  for  in  the  common  use  of 
divines.  It  would  have  been  too  great  a  leap  to 
have  arrived,  all  at  once,  at  a  doctrine  so  glaringly 
unscriptural,  as  that  the  word  which  St.  Paul  employs 
so  often  in  the  fourth  Chapter  of  Romans,  {eleven 
times,  says  Bishop  Andre wes,  in  its  several  forms  of 
impute,  account,  and  reckon^)  could  not,  by  any  pos- 
sibility, be  admitted.  No,  the  word  impute  must  be 
got  in  some  how  or  other. 

But  in  what  sense  do  these  writers  now  speak  of 
two  righteonmesses  and  one  imputed?  Hooker,  for 
example,  says,  in  the  common  use  of  words,  ''There 
be  two  kinds  of  Christian  righteousness ;  the  one 
without  us,  which  we  have  b}^  imputation  ;  the  other 
within  us,  which  consisterth  of  Faith,  Hope,  and 
Charity,  and  other  Christian  virtues." 

But  this  external  righteousness  of  Christ,  which 


156 


is  here  said  to  be  imputed,  for  the  very  purpose  of 
distinguishing  it  from  that  which  is  indwelling  and 
inwrought,  is  precisely  what  Dr.  Pusey  stigmatises 
as  a  mere  abstract  title  of  righteousness,^^  a  mere 
name — the  Reputative  Justification,"  which  Mr. 
Newman  says,  was  the  gift  of  the  Law,"  in  distinc- 
tion from  the  Grace  and  truth  which  came  by 
Jesus  Christ." 

*«  When  the  divines  who  teach  this,  (he  says,)  come  to  me  with 
their  visionary  system,  an  unreal  righteousness,  and  a  real  corrup- 
tion, I  answer,  that  the  law  is  past,  and  1  will  not  be  brought  into 
bondage  by  shadows.  Away  then  with  this  modern,  this  private, 
this  arbitrary,  this  tyrannical  system,  which  promising  liberty,  con- 
spires against  it,  and  for  the  real  participation  of  Christ  and  justifica- 
tion through  his  Spirit,  would  feed  us  on  shells  and  husks.  It  is  a 
new  gospel.  It  is  surely  too  bold  an  attempt  to  take  from  our 
hearts,  the  power,  the  fulness,  the  mysterious  presence  of  Christ's 
most  holy  death  and  resurrection,  and  to  soothe  us  for  our  loss  with 
the  name  of  having  it."^ 

Of  course  then  we  must  so  far  obey  this  peremp- 
tory injunction,  that  though  we  may  not  be  quite 
willing  to  away^^  with  the  "  two  kinds  of  righteous- 
ness," w^hich  Hooker  finds,  we  must  away  with  the 
idea  that,  in  Oxford  divinity,  the  expression,  two 
righteousnesses,  perfect  and  imperfect'^  participates  in 
the  least  of  a  righteousness  ''without  us,  which  we 
have  by  imputation,"  or  really  means  any  other  than 
that  one  righteousness  within  us,  which  consisteth  of 
Faith,  Hope,  Charity,  &c. — and  which  is  wrought  in 
us  by  the  Spirit,  through  the  merits  of  the  Passion 
of  Christ.  We  cannot  forget  that  it  has  been  else- 
where said  by  Mr.  Newman,  that  ''Imputed  righte- 


'  Lectureg,  pp.  61,  62. 


157 


ousness  is  the  coming  in  of  actual  righteousness,^^  actual, 
or  personal,  as  distinguished  from  external,  from  what 
is  called,  in  common  language,  imputed.  And  farther 
that  it  has  been  before  said  that  "  Christ  is  our 
righteousness,  by  dwelling  in  us  by  the  Spirit ^  The 
sanctifying  indwelling  of  the  Spirit  is  therefore  all 
that  is  meant  by  ''the  imputed  righteousness  of 
Christ,"  in  the  speech  of  these  divines.^  Then  since 
the  phrases  ''righteousness  of  Christ'^  ''merits  of 
Christy''  "meritorious  sacrifice  of  Christ,""  have  all 
the  same  use,  it  follows  that  when  in  the  extract 
above  given,  Mr.  Newman  seems,  after  all  that  has 
gone  before,  of  such  exceedingly  diverse  aspect,  to 
speak  at  length  a  little  like  the  simplicity  and  truth 
of  the  Gospel,  of  our  being  justified  by ''obedience 
w^hich  trusts  only  in  Christ's  merits  for  acceptance," 
in  "  the  sprinkling  of  Christ's  meritorious  sacrifice,"" 
w^e  are  only  to  understand  that  it  trusts  in  the  merits 
of  the  indwelling  of  the  Spirit,  or  in  other  w^ords,  of 
that  righteousness  of  Sanctification  in  us,  which  the 
Spirit  works  for  Christ's  sake  ;  and  thus  the  cross 
which  we  are  referred  to  for  additional  merit  is  only 
"  the  cross  rvithin" — "  the  mysterious  presence  of 
Christ's  death  and  resurrection;"  and  so  Mr.  New- 
man is,  after  all,  no  better  than  he  was  before,  when 
he  said  that  "  the  cross  in  w^hich  St.  Paul  gloried," 
(and,  of  course,  'Uhe  sprinkling"  we  are  to  trust  in,) 
"  was  not  the  actual  sacrifice  on  the  cross,  but  that 
sacrifice  coming  in  power  to  him  who  has  faith  in  it, 
and  converting  body  and  soul  into  a  sacrifice — the 


•  For  a  further  view  of  the  use  of  the  word  imputed,  or  accounted  in  this 
divinity,  see  p.  69  of  this  work. 


158 


cross  realized,  present,  living  in  him,  sealing  him, 
separating  him  from  the  world,  sanctifying,  afflicting 
him."^ 

We  have  now  reached  the  precise  meaning  of  the 
declaration  that  we  are  saved  by  Chris fs  imputed 
righteousness,  and  hy  our  orvn  inchoate  righteousness 
at  once^  It  is  simply  the  doctrine  of  the  trvo  formal 
causes  of  Justification  of  w^hich  we  have  already 
spoken,  the  proper  and  the  improper — the  former  con- 
sisting of  "  the  indwelling  of  the  Spirit,"  or  Christ's 
"propitiatory  indwelling the  latter  of  our  ow^n  sanc- 
tification ;  which  two,  we  learn  from  Mr.  Newman 
himself,  are  also  admitted  hy  Romayiists^^  So  that 
after  all  this  work  about  imputed  righteousness,  as  if 
at  last  our  Oxford  gentlemen  were  getting  back  to 
the  Gospel  and  to  Protestantism,  the  whole  distinction 
between  what  they  call  by  that  name,  and  our  own 
righteousness  with  which  they  associate  it,  is  that 
old  Scholastic  Quodlihet  of  Thomas  Aquinas,  the  dis- 
tinction betw^een  "  that  divine  gift,''  or  principle' 
of  indwelling  righteousness,  which  is  not  rvithin  us, 
but  in  us,  which  includes  all  holy  virtues,  but  is  not 
any,  or  all  of  them,  and  that  quality''  of  holiness 
which  is  in  us  as  w^ell  as  within  us,  and  which  Mr. 
Newsman  says  elsewhere,  is  nevertheless  ^'suhstan- 
tially  the  same  as  the  other," 

But  this  distinction,  instead  of  being  a  dissent  from 
Romanism,  is  of  Romish  origin.    Mr.  N.  himself  as- 

1  Lect.  p.  206. 

2  Lect.  399.  Bishop  Hall  also  shows  this.  "  Who  can  abide,  (he  says,) 
that  noted  speech'of  Bellarmine,  '  A  just  man  hath  by  a  double  title,  right  to  the 
same  glory  :  one  by  the  merits  of  Christ,  imparted  to  him  by  grace,  another  by 
his  own  merits.*'"    Hall's  No  Peare  with  Rome,  Works  ix.  p.  51. 


159 


sures  us  that  it  was  a  subject  of  debate  in  the  Coun- 
cil of  Trent,  and  was  left  undecided,  and  is  therefore 
perfectly  consistent  with  its  established  creed.  Here 
then  is  the  whole  result.  The  imputed  righteous- 
ness of  Christ,  in  Oxford  Divinity,  is  nothing  else 
than  our  own  Sanctification,  communicated  by  the 
Spirit,  for  Christ's  sake ;  to  be  saved  by  that  and  our 
own  inchoate  righteousness  at  once,  means  simply  to 
be  saved  by  our  own  inceptive  holiness,  wrought  in 
us  in  virtue  of  the  death  of  Christ.  The  whole  mean- 
ing of  Mr.  N.,  as  expounded  by  himself,  is  just  as 
consistent  with  Romanism,  as  with  Oxfordism,  and 
is  actually  said,  by  him,  to  be  admitted  by  Romanist 
authors.  So  much  for  the  only  three  particulars  in 
which  our  Oxford  divines  profess  to  distinguish  be- 
tween their  doctrine  and  that  of  Rome,  viz.,  1.  That 
Romanists  make  the  indwelling  righteousness  of 
Justification  a  qualitij  of  the  mind,  and  Oxfordism 
does  not.  2.  That  Romanism  admits  bat  ''one  for- 
mal cause  of  Justification^  (inherent  righteousness) 
while  Oxfordism  has  two.  3.  That  Romanism  teaches 
we  are  justified  by  obedience,  without  the  continual 
imputation  of  Christ's  merits,  while  Oxfordism  teaches 
that  we  are  justified  by  both  at  once. 

But  these  three,  though  for  the  sake  of  perspicuity 
they  have  been  treated  separately,  really  amount  to 
but  one,  as  they  all  unite  in  the  merits  of  the  first, 
and  must  stand  or  fall  with  the  validity  and  anti-Ro- 
manist character  of  that  distinction.  We  have  seen 
that  in  each  case  the  distinction  is  without  a  differ- 
ence, and  that  whether  it  be  valid  or  not,  it  is  just  as 
consistent  with  Romanism,  as  with  this  new  sort  of 
Protestantism. 


160 


The  reader  is  now  prepared  to  set  the  true  value 
upon  the  declaration  of  Dr.  Pusey,  that  what  he  con- 
ceives to  be  the  true  Anglican  doctrine  differs  ''from 
the  Roman,  in  that  it  excludes  Sanctijication  from 
having  any  place  in  our  Justification^^  Mr.  New- 
man knows  better,  and  grants  it  to  be  one  of  the 
''two  formal  causes."  The  Romanists  know  best  of 
all,  and  interpret  Oxford  Justification  as  an  entire  re- 
turn to  theirs. 

As  to  the  use  of  the  word  impute,  in  the  Oxford 
sense,  there  never  has  been  any  objection  among  Ro- 
manists. 

The  anathema  of  Trent  is  not  against  those  who 
hold  Justification  by  imputed  righteousness  in  part, 
or  in  any  sense;  but  precisely  according  to  the  pro- 
cul  est e prof ani  oi  Mr.  Newman;  it  is  against  those 
who  hold  "  that  we  are  justified  by  the  mere  imputa- 
tion of  Christ's  righteousness,  to  the  exclusion  of  grace 
and  charity^  which  by  the  Holy  Spirit  is  shed  abroad 
in  our  hearts" — in  other  words,  to  the  exclusion  of 
"inchoate  righteousness."^ 

The  merits  of  Christ  come  into  the  Romish  doc- 
trine quite  as  much  as  into  that  of  Oxford.  "  They 
teach  as  we  do,  (says  Hooker)  that  unto  Justice  no 
man  ever  attained,  but  by  the  merits  of  Jesus  Christ. 
They  teach  as  we  do,  that  although  Christ,  as  God, 
be  the  efficient,  as  man,  he  is  the  meritorious  cause 
of  our  justice,  and  without  the  application  of  the 
merit  of  Christ,  there  can  be  no  Justification."^  Now 


1  Letter,  p.  46.  2  si  quis  dixeri  hominerajustificari,  vel  sola  imputa- 

tione  justitiae  Christi,  vel  sola  peccatorum  remissione,  exclusa  gratia  et  charitate, 
quse  in  cordibus  eorum,  per  spiritual  Sanctum  difFunditur — anathema  sit. — Sess. 
vi.  c.  xi.  3  Hooker  on  Justif.  §  4. 


161 


this  is  quite  as  strong,  as  to  the  merits  of  Christ,  as 
any  thing  in  Oxford  Divinity.  The  Romanist  can- 
not deny,  (says  Chemnitz)  that  Paul  often  uses  the 
word  impute  in  reference  to  Justification;  but  An- 
drada  maintains  that  the  imputation  of  Chris fs  righte- 
ousness signifies  nothing  more  than  the  infusion  of 
inherent  righteousness  into  the  regenerate  for  Christ's 
sake.  As  if  to  impute  iniquitij  were,  in  St.  Paul's 
sense,  to  infuse  iniquitij  into  any  one.^ 

A  vindication  of  Oxford  divinity  may  be  attempt- 
ed on  the  ground  that  whereas  it  is  a  prominent 

1  Chemnitz  Examen.  Dec.  Trid.  p.  149. 

This  put  Chemnitz  in  mind  that  during  the  Osiandrian  controversy,  he  had 
heard,  not  without  laughter,  of  some  who  philosophized  on  the  word  putare 
and  its  compounds,  as  verbum  hortense,  a  word  pertaining  to  horticulture;  so 
that,  as  amputare  signifies  to  take  aivay  something,  so  iwpiitare  must  signify 
io  insert,  implant,  pour  in  new  qualities  into  a  man.  And  this  -wisdom,  he 
says,  viz.,  that  imputation  signifies  only  to  infuse  righteousness,  was  introduced 
in  the  Council  of  Trent,"  (p.  149.)  Father  Paul  gives  us  some  of  the  debate 
on  this  subject.  "  Vega,  a  leader,  maintained  that  it  was  a  most  proper  Latin 
word  to  say  that  the  righteousness  of  Christ  is  imputed  for  satisfaction  and 
merit,  and  that  it  is  continually  imputed  to  all  that  be  jusiifed,  and  do  satisfy 
for  their  own  sins,  but  he  would  not  have  it  said  that  it  was  imputed  as  if  it 
■were  ours."  This  is  belter  doctrine  than  that  of  Oxford.  The  Heremite  Gene- 
ral held  that  in  Baptism  the  Justice  of  Christ  is  imputed,  because  it  is  commu- 
nicated wholly  and  entirely,  but  not  in  penance,  xvhen  our  satisfactions  are  also 
required.  But  Soto,  who  thoroughly  held  to  the  effective  sense  of  Justifica- 
tion, said  the  word  Imputation  was  most  popular  and  plausible,  because  it  sig- 
nified, at  the  first  sight,  that  all  should  be  acknowledged  for  Christ,  but  yet  he 
did  ever  suspect  it,  in  regard  of  the  bad  consequences  which  the  Lutherans  did 
draw  from  thence — that  is,  that  this  only  is  sufficient  (for  Justification)  without 
inherent  righteousness,  that  the  punishment  is  abolished,  together  with  the 
guilt;  that  there  remainelh  no  place  for  satisfaction.  This  admonition  begat 
such  a  suspicion  in  the  hearers  that  there  appeared  a  manifest  disposition  to 
condemn  the  word  for  heretical,  though  reasons  -were  effectually  applied  to  the 
contrary.'' — Paul's  Hist.  Cone.  Trent,  pp.  199,  200. 

Much  was  said  against  the  IiUtherans,  who  grounded  their  doctrine  of  Impu- 
tation upon  the  Hebrew  Tsudak  and  the  Greek  ^ik^iovSai  signify  to  be  pro- 
21 


162 


feature  of  Romanism,  that  it  positively  attributes  a 
degree  of  merit  to  the  good  works  of  the  Justified,  so 
that  by  them  they  may  truly  deserve  an  increase  of 
grace,  and  eternal  life ;  the  Oxford  divines,  on  the 
contrary,  expressly  ascribe  all  merit  in  Justification 
to  the  Cross  and  Passion  of  Christ. 

To  those  who  are  familiar  with  the  position  of  the 
doctrine  of  merits,  in  the  decrees  of  Trent,  it  is  need- 
less to  say  any  thing  in  ansAver  to  this  plea.  But  for 
others,  a  little  time  may  not  be  uselessly  spent  on 
this  head. 


nounced,  not  made  just.  This  leads  us  to  some  amusing  features  of  the  de- 
bate on  the  Scriptures,  in  which  great  care  was  taken  against  being  troubled 
with  the  interpreting  of  the  Bible  in  its  original  tongues. 

Soon  after  the  opening,  "  there  was  much  difference  about  the  Latin  Trans- 
lation, between  some  few  who  had  good  knowledge  of  Latin,  and  some  taste  of 
Greek,  and  others  who  were  ignorant  in  the  Tongues."  Friar  Aloisius  urged 
much,  on  the  authority  of  Cajetan,  a  reference  to  the  Hebrew  and  Greek  Texts 
the  latter  having  said  that  "to  understand  the  Latin  'I'ext  was  not  to  under- 
stand the  infallible  word  of  God,"  and  that  if  "  the  Doctors  of  the  former  age 
had  gone  to  the  original  tests,  the  Lutheran  heresy  never  would  have  found 
place."  But  "the  major  part  of  the  divines  (knowing  better  where  their 
strength  lay)  said  it  was  necessary  to  account  that  Translation  which  formerly 
had  been  read  in  the  Churches,  and  used  in  the  Schools,  divine  and  authen- 
tical ;  otherwise  they  should  yield  the  cause  to  the  Lutherans — that  the  doc- 
trine of  the  Church  of  Rome,  is  in  a  great  part  founded  by  the  Popes  and  by  School 
Divines,  upon  some  passage  of  the  Scripture,  which  if  every  one  had  liberty  to 
examine  whether  it  were  well  translated,  running  to  other  translations,  or  seeking 
how  it  was  in  the  Greek  or  Hebrew,  these  new  Grammarians  would  confound  all, 
and  instead  of  Divines  and  Canonists,  Pedants  should  be  preferred  to  Bishops 
and  Cardinals.  The  Inquisitors  would  not  be  able  to  proceed  against  the  Lu- 
therans, in  case  they  knew  not  Greek  and  Hebrew."  To  this,  some,  as  Isido- 
rus  Clarus,  a  Benedictine  Abbot,  were  directly  opposed.  Vega  proposed  mid- 
dle ground — but  Richard  of  Mans,  a  Franciscan,  said  that  "  the  doctrines  of 
faith  were  now  so  cleared,  (viz.  by  Popes  and  Schoolmen)  that  we  ought  no 
more  to  learn  them  out  of  Scripture;  that  the  studying  of  the  Scripture  should 
be  prohibited  to  every  one  that  is  not  first  covjirmed  in  School  divinity;  neither 
do  the  Lutherans  gain  upon  any  but  those  that  study  the  Scripture." — Paul's 
Hist  pp.  155—159. 


163 


Now  it  is  true  that  in  the  decrees  of  Trent,  we 
find  this  most  appalUng  language  : 

"  If  any  man  shall  say  that  the  good  works  of  a  Justified  Person 
are  the  gifts  of  God,  in  such  a  manner  that  they  are  not  also  the 
Justified  person's  merits ;  or  that  the  Justified  person  does  not  truly 
deserve  increase  of  grace,  eternal  life,  and  (upon  condition  that  he 
die  in  the  grace  of  God,)  the  obtaining  of  eternal  life,  and  also  an 
increase  of  grace,  by  those  good  works  which  he  does  by  the  grace 
of  God,  and  the  merit  of  Jesus  Christ,  of  whom  he  is  a  living  mem- 
ber, let  him  be  accursed."^ 

It  is  true  also  that  Dr.  Pusey  interprets  the  Article 
of  his  Church  on  Justification,  as  putting  ^^in  strong 
contrast  the  merits  of  Christ  and  the  merits  of  man^^ 
and  as  saying,  ^'  that  rve  are  justified  solely  for  the  sake 
of  his  merit,  and  not for  our  oivn  works  or  deserving  s.'' 

The  Article  opposes,  (he  continues,)  the  merit  of 
Christ,  to  any  thing  rvhich  we  have  of  our  own,  to  our 
own  works  and  deserving s,  as  the  meritorious  cause 
of  our  salvation r  It  is  so  plain  a  truth,  and  has 
been  so  often  inculcated  hy  us,  that  every  sin  of  man 
which  is  remitted,  is  remitted  only  for  the  sake  of  His 
meritorious  Cross  and  Passion,  every  good  and  accept- 
able work  is  such  through  his  power  working  in  us, 
that  little,  I  believe,  has  thus  far  been  objected.'"^ 

To  a  superficial  reader,  it  may  seem  that  between 
these  words  of  Dr.  Pusey  and  those  above  of  the 
Council  of  Trent,  there  is  a  vast  discrepancy.  But 
in  sober  truth,  there  is  not  the  least  disagreement. 
They  refer  to  different  matters  entirely.  Dr.  Pusey 
speaks  of  merit  for  the  obtaining  of  that  Justification 
whereby  an  ungodly  man  becomes  a  righteous  man 
in  God's  sight ;  that  which  the  Romanists  call  the 


'  Concil  Trident,  «?es3.  Ti.  c,  35>.  *  TiPfter,  p.  41, 


164 


first  Jiistificatioii.  But  the  words  cited  from  the 
decrees  of  Trent,  as  do  all  the  pretences  of  Romish 
merit,  in  Justification,  refer  only  to  the  increase  of 
that  grace,''  the  progression  of  that  Justified  stated  or 
what  Romanists  call  the  second  Justification/  When 
the  Church  of  Rome  speaks  of  that  Justification,  on 
which  we  are  now  writing,  and  of  which  Dr.  Pusey 
wrote,  the  only  one  indeed  of  which  the  Scriptures 
speak,  to  rvit,  when  a  sinner,  hitherto  abiding  under 
condemnation,  repents  and  turns  to  God,  and  seeks 
remission  of  sin  and  peace  through  Jesus  Christ,  the 
language  of  merit  is  scrupulously  avoided,  and  the 
language  of  Dr.  Pusey  is  fully  paralleled,  if  not 
word  for  word  employed. 

The  doctrine  of  Oxford  Divinity  and  that  of  Rome, 
as  to  what  Justification  consists  in,  being  precisely 
the  same,  it  is  quite  as  much  the  declaration  of  the 
Council  of  Trent,  as  of  the  school  of  Oxford,  that 
whether  the  infusion  of  righteousness,  by  Baptism, 
be  in  the  case  of  infants,  or  of  ^'wicked  men,"  it  is  in 
either  case  without  rvorhs.^'^  We  are  then  said  to  be 
justified  freely,  in  the  sense  of  Trent,  "''because  no- 
thing rvhich  precedes  justification,  rvhether  faith  or 
rvorhs,  deserves  the  grace  of  Justification Does  Dr. 
Pusey  ascribe  the  "  meritorious  cause"  only  to  Christ  ? 


'  They  call  that  the  First  Justification  when  a  man,  not  before  regenerate, 
first  receives  the  infusion  of  inherent  righteousness.  And  this  infusion  o^^ 
grace,  they  say,  is  what  no  works  going  before  deserve,  as  a  due  reward,  tanqiiam 
debitam  merceclem.  They  call  that  the  Second  Justification,  when  infused 
grace  exercises  its  proper  operations,  bringing  forth  good  works.  And  this, 
they  say,  is  obtained  and  deserved  by  good  works,  but  still  through  the  merits 
of  Christ. 

2  Hooker's  Discourse  of  Justification,  §  ^. 

'■^  Quia  nihil  eorum  quae  justificationem  precedent,  sive  fides,  sive  opera,  ipsam 
justificationis  gratiam  promeretur.    Sess.  vi.  c.  7. 


165 


So  does  Rome,  precisely  in  the  same  words.  "This 
first  Justification,  they  say,  is  by  faith,  the  obedience 
and  satisfaction  of  Christ  being  the  onlij  meritorious 
cause  thereof r  "The  Council  warily  avoided  the 
name  of  merit,  with  respect  unto  the  first  justifica- 
tion."^ How  could  we  expect  any  thing  else  ?  The 
substance  of  the  doctrine,  whether  of  the  Romanists 
or  Oxfordists,  may  involve  a  glaring  departure  from 
the  Scriptural  way  of  justification  by  the  righteous- 
ness of  Christ ;  but  it  would  be  to  charge  its  advo- 
cates, not  only  with  tremendous  heresy,  but  singular 
fatuity,  to  suppose  them  capable  of  maintaining  in 
words,  or  of  not  denying  in  words,  that  when  an  un- 
godly man,  yesterday  at  enmity  with  God,  repents 
to-day  and  is  baptized  and  justified,  his  justification 
is  by  any  merit  of  his  own.  There  are  no  passages 
in  Oxford  writings  in  assertion  of  salvation  only 
through  Christ's  merits,  stronger  than  those  which 
Hooker  has  given  to  the  same  point  in  the  33  sect, 
of  his  Discourse  of  Justification,  from  the  writings 
of  leading  divines  of  Rome. 

*'Can  any  man,  (he  says,)  that  hath  read  their  books,  be  ignorant 
how  they  draw  all  their  answers  unto  these  heads?  That  the  re- 
mission of  all  our  sins,  the  pardon  of  all  whatsoever  punishments 
thereby  deserved,  the  rewards  which  God  hath  laid  up  in  heaven,  are 
by  the  blood  of  our  Lord  Jesus  Christ  purchased,  and  obtained  suffi- 
ciently for  all  men ;  but  for  no  man  effectually  for  his  benefit,  in 
particular,  except  the  blood  of  Christ  be  applied  particularly  to  him, 
by  such  means  as  God  hath  appointed  that  to  work  by.  That  those 
means  of  themselves,  being  but  dead  things,  only  the  blood  of  Christ 
is  that  which  putteth  life,  force,  and  efficacy,  in  them  to  work,  and 
to  be  available  each  in  its  kind,  to  our  salvation." 


'  Owen  on  Justification,  c.  v.  pp.  170,  171. 


166 


Where,  in  Dr.  Pusey,  or  Mr.  Newman,  is  more 
thorough-going  language  than  this?  But  even  this 
does  not  save  the  Church  of  Rome  from  Hooker's 
charge  of  being  ""an  adversary  to  Chris fs  merits,^^ 
and  a  maintainer  of  a  heresy,  on  this  head,  ^^rvhich 
overthrorveth  the  foundation  of  faiths 

"  If  any  think,  (he  says,)  that  I  seek  to  varnish  their  opinions,  let 
him  know,  that  since  I  began  thoroughly  to  understand  their  mean- 
ing, I  have  found  their  halting  greater  than  perhaps  it  seemeth  to 
them  which  know  not  the  deepness  of  Satan,  as  the  blessed  Divine 
speaketh.  For  although  this  be  proof  sufficient,  that  they  do  not 
directly  deny  the  foundation  of  Faith,  yet,  if  there  were  no  other 
leaven  in  the  lump  of  their  doctrine,  but  this  (merit,)  this  were  suffi- 
cient to  prove  that  their  doctrine  is  not  agreeable  to  the  foundation 
of  Christian  Faith.  The  Pelagians,  being  over-great  friends  unto 
Nature,  made  themselves  enemies  unto  Grace,  for  all  their  confess- 
ing, that  men  have  their  souls,  and  all  the  faculties  thereof,  their 
wills  and  all  the  ability  of  their  wills  from  God."* 

And  so,  after  all  the  protestations  of  Romanists, 
Hooker  taking  their  doctrine  of  Justification,  and 
choosing  to  judge  for  himself  how  far  its  essential 
nature  referred  all  to  the  merits  of  Christ,  sums  up 
the  whole  in  this  one  sentence  of  entire  condemna- 
tion. 

Whether  they  speak  of  the  first  or  second  Justifi- 
cation, they  make  the  essence  of  a  divine  quality  inhe- 
rent;  they  make  it  righteousness  rvhich  is  in  us.  If 
it  be  righteousness  in  us,  then  it  is  ours,  as  our  souls 
are  ours,  though  we  have  them  from  God,  and  can 
hold  them  no  longer  than  pleaseth  him;  for  if  He 
withdraw  the  breath  of  our  nostrils,  we  fall  to  dust ; 
but  the  righteousness  wherein  we  must  be  found,  if 


'  niscourse  of  Justific.  §  33. 


167 


we  will  be  justified  is  not  otir  own  ;  therefore  we  can- 
not be  justified  by  any  inherent  quality."^ 

Now  let  the  force  of  this  exceedingly  pregnant  pas- 
sage be  well  understood.  Hooker  has  just  been  dis- 
playing^ the  whole  ''maze  which  the  Church  of 
Rome  doth  cause  her  followers  to  tread  Avhen  they 
ask  her  the  way  to  Justification."  He  has  spoken  of 
the  second  Justification  by  professedly  ?neritorious 
works,  as  well  as  of  the  first  by  Baptism,  without 
works.  He  says  he  cannot  take  time  "to  unrip  this 
building  and  sift  it  piece  by  piece;"  he  will,  how- 
ever, pass  it  with  a  few  words,  *' that  that  may  befall 
Babylon,  in  the  presence  of  that  which  God  hath 
builded,  as  happened  unto  Dagon  before  the  Ark." 
Such  is  his  idea  of  Romish  Justification — emphati- 
cally Babylon.  Then  he  selects  for  an  example  of 
''that  which  God  hath  builded,"  those  blessed  words 
of  St.  Paul,  "  Doubtless^  I  have  counted  all  things  hut 
loss,  and  do  count  them  hut  dung,  that  I  may  win 
Christ  and  he  found  in  him,  not  having  my  own 
righteousness,  hut  that  which  is  through  the  faith  of 
Christy  the  righteousness  which  is  of  God  through 
Faithr  Before  this  building  of  God,  he  unravels 
the  maze  of  Rome,  in  the  passage  we  have  quoted ; 
in  which,  as  thus  connected,  let  the  reader  well 
observe 

1.  That,  though  the  Church  of  Rome  disclaims 
merit  in  the  first  Justification,  and  pretends  to  it  in 
the  second,  and  in  hoth  ascrihes  all  to  the  merits  of 
Christ;  in  Hooker's  judgment,  the  foundationin  hoth 


'  Discourse  of  Justific.  §  5. 


2  See  p.  19,  of  this  work. 


168 


is  really  neither  more  nor  less  than  our  own  merits, 
or  righteousness;  precisely  that  own  righteousness" 
which  St.  Paul  rejected  as  opposed  to  the  righteous- 
ness of  faith,  and  which  he  counted  as  dung. 

2.  He  considers  the  foundation  of  both  to  be  simply 
that  of  our  orvn  merits  or  righteousness,  not  because, 
in  either  case,  merits  are  claimed,  but  in  both, 
whether  claimed  or  denied,  because  "the  essence"  or 
''the  justifying  principle,"  is  "a  divine  quality,"  or 

a  righteousness  in  us.  Its  being  a  righteousness  in 
us  and  not  "  the  external  righteousness  of  Jesus 
Christ,  which  is  imputed,"  is  the  sole  ground  on 
which  he  rests  the  charge  of  Justification  by  our 

own  righteousness"  or  merits.  That  Romanists  do 
actually  pretend  to  merits  in  the  second  Justification, 
is,  in  Hooker's  view,  the  advancing  of  no  claim  not 
substantially  professed  before,  but  only  the  further 
development  in  words  of  what  existed  before  in 
reality,  the  bolder  carrying  out  of  the  principle  of 
Justification  by  a  righteousness  within  us. 

3  In  Hooker's  view  no  righteousness  can  be 
within  us,  whether  called  "  the  presence  of  God  hy 
His  Spirit,"  or  ''a  divine  glory,"  or  " light,"  or 

gift,"  or  Shekinah,"  without  being  inherent,  in 
the  same  sense  in  which  our  souls  are  inherent ;  or 
without  being  our  own,  in  the  same  sense  in  w^hich 
our  souls  are  our  own;  so  that,  in  his  view,  to  say 
that  the  righteousness  within  us  is  "a  divine  gift 
needing  continually  a  divine  renewal,  and  there- 
fore, to  be  justified  thereby,  is  not  to  be  justified 
by  our  own  merits,  is  just  the  same  as  to  say 
that  the  faculties  of  our  souls  are  a  divine  gift, 


169 


and  continually  sustained  in  us  of  God;  and  there- 
fore, to  be  justified  by  them  or  their  works,  would 
not  be  a  justification  by  our  ow^n  merits. 

Thus,  in  Hooker's  view,  however  odious  and  aw- 
ful the  Romish  positive  claim  of  merit,  in  the  se- 
cond Justification,  the  doctrine  involves  the  claim ; 
whether  they  make  it,  in  so  many  words,  or  not. 
Precisely  as  the  Pelagians  have  been  universally 
considered  as  enemies  io grace,  because  ''being  over- 
great  friends  unto  Nature,"  they  maintained  the 
sufficiency  of  man,  without  the  inworking  of  the 
Holy  Ghost,  to  do  good  works  acceptable  to  God ;  at 
the  same  time  that  they  confessed  ''that  men  have 
their  souls  and  all  their  faculties  thereof,  their  wills, 
and  all  the  ability  of  their  wills,  from  God  so  must 
the  Romanists  be  considered  as  enemies  to  grace  and 
advocates  of  merit,  in  our  Justification;  because, 
being  over-great  friends  unto  our  own  inherent 
righteousness  in  this  matter,  they  maintain  the  suf- 
ficiency thereof  for  our  acceptance  with  God  ;  at  the 
same  time  that  they  do  strenuously  profess  that  all 
our  righteousness,  in  all  its  works,  cometh  only  by 
the  inw^orking  of  God's  Spirit,  and  in  virtue  of  the 
mercy  of  God  and  the  passion  of  Christ.  There  is, 
indeed,  a  revolting  extent  of  abomination  in  the 
overtness  and  barefacedness  with  which  the  Council 
of  Trent,  and  sundry  Romish  writers,  since,  have 
evolved  the  rudiment  of  merit  into  daring  expres- 
sions of  anti-christian  presumption,^  as  if  Satan's 
right  hand  had  forgot  its  cunning.  But  in  planting 
the  principle  of  a  righteousness  in  us,  as  the  justiji/" 


1  See  Usher's  Answer  to  a  Jesuit;  Chapter  on  Merits. 

22 


170 


ing  principle,  they  planted  the  tree,  which  must,  in 
time,  ramify  into  such  boasting,  if  allowed  its  natural 
spread,  whether  planted  at  Trent,  or  at  Oxford. 

Now  let  us  see  where  all  this  applies  to  the  sys- 
tem of  our  Oxford  divines.  Like  Rome,  they  as- 
cribe the  ''meritorious  cause"  of  Justification,  only 
to  Christ;  the  efficient^  to  the  Holy  Spirit;  the  in- 
strumental^ to  Baptism,  and  the  ''formal  cause," 
only  to  a  righteousness  in  us.  Then,  we  say  of 
them,  according  to  the  words  of  Hooker ;  "  Whether 
they  speak  of  the  first  or  second  Justification,  they 
make  it  consist  in  a  righteousness  which  is  ours,  as 
our  souls  are  ours;"  inherent  our  souls  are  inhe- 
rent; they  make  it  the  righteousness  which  St.  Paul 
renounced  that  he  might  win  Christ,  and  not  the 
righteousness  for  which  he  counted  that  as  worth- 
less and  loathsome ;  precisely  because  they  make  it 
our  ^'own^  Then  let  it  be  said  that  it  is  infused  of 
God  and  sustained  of  God,  without  our  desert;  so 
we  say  of  our  souls  and  all  their  faculties;  let  them 
deny  that  they  ascribe  any  merit  to  such  righteous- 
ness, or  to  any  works  proceeding  therefrom ;  let  them 
maintain  that  in  making  Justification  thus  to  con- 
sist in  a  righteousness  in  them,  instead  of  an  external 
righteousness  only  in  Christ  and  only  accounted  unto 
them,  they  do  attribute  all  to  the  merits  of  Christ 
and  nothing  to  their  own  works  or  deservings ;  it  is 
nothing  more  than  Romish  writers  have  often  done ; 
nothing  more  than  the  Council  of  Trent  itself  has 
done."^    They  teach,  (says  Hooker,)  that  our  good 

'  "  Thus  neither  our  own  proper  righteousness  is  so  determined  to  be  our  own, 
as  if  it  were  from  ourselves  ;  nor  is  the  righteousness  of  God  either  unknown  or 
rejected.    For  that  which  is  called  our  righteousness,  because  through  it  being 


171 


works  do  not  these  things  as  they  come  from  us,  but 
as  they  come  from  grace  in  us;  which  grace  in  ns, 
is  another  thing  in  their  divinity,  than  is  the  mere 
goodness  of  God's  mercy  towards  us,  in  Christ 
Jesus.  ^ 

To  deny,  in  the  development,  what  is  substantially 
contained  in  the  acknowledged  rudiment,  is  an  in- 
consistency by  which  many,  we  hope,  very  many, 
professed  Romanists,  as  well  as  our  brethren  of  Ox- 
ford, have  held  on,  in  their  hearts  and  words,  to  that 
only  foundation  of  a  sinner's  hope  before  God,  which 
their  more  formal  doctrine  has  substantially  denied ; 
and  have  rejected,  in  their  devout  affections,  the  very 
righteousness  of  works  which  their  written  creed  has 
embraced.  Thus  says  Bishop  Andre wes,  the  very 
Schoolmen  themselves,  take  them  from  their  ques- 
tions, quodlibets,  and  comments  on  the  Sentences,  let 
them  be  in  their  meditations  or  devotions,  and  espe- 
cially in  directing  how  to  deal  with  men  in  their  last 
agony — then  take  Anselm,  take  Bona  venture,  take 
Gerson,  you  would  not  wish  to  find  *  Jehovah  our 
Righteousness'  more  pregnantly  acknowledged." 

The  same  venerable  Bishop  shows  the  same  happy 
inconsistency  in  Gregory  of  Valentia,  in  Stapleton, 
in  Cardinal  Bellarmine.  We  earnestly  hope  there  is 
the  same  to  be  found  in  their  followers  at  Oxford. 
With  the  personal,  private,  practical  reliance  for  sal- 


inherent  in  us  we  are  justified  ;  that  same  is  the  righteousness  of  God,  because 
it  is  infused  into  us  of  God,  through  the  merit  of  Christ.  Far  however  be  it 
from  a  christian  man,  that  he  should  either  trust  or  glory  in  himself  and  not  in 
the  Lord  ;  whose  goodness  to  all  men  is  so  great,  that  what  are  truly  his  gifts, 
hewilleth  to  be  estimated  as  their  merits." — Concil.  Trident.  Sess.  vi.  c.  16. 
'  Discourse  of  Justific.  §  33. 


172 


vation,  in  these  gentlemen,  whether  it  be  consistent 
or  inconsistent  with  the  great  error  of  their  theory  of 
Justification,  we  have  nothing  to  do.  God  grant 
they  may  abundantly  rejoice  in  Christ,  in  spite  of 
the  lamentable  substitution  of  a  crucifixion  within 
them,  as  the  object  to  be  looked  to  for  Justification, 
instead  of  the  sacrifice  upon  the  cross,  in  which  alone 
we  are  permitted  to  glory.  We  are  dealing  only 
with  their  doctrine.  That  is  one  thing.  Thtir  use 
of  it  is  quite  another.  The  former,  we  maintain,  is 
that  of  our  own  righteousness,  or  works,  or  merits, 
in  substitution  for  what  Paul  and  our  Church  call 
''the  Righteousness  of  God  by  faith."^  Their  denial 
of  this  only  proves  that  such  is  not  the  inference 
they  make  from  the  doctrine.    We  must  make  our 


'  Our  own  righteousness  and  that  of  God  by  faith  are  always  set  in  opposition 
by  the  inspired  writers.  Is  one  called  "Me  righteousness  of  /aw.?"  the  other  is 
*Hhe  righteousness  of faith"  is  the  one  called  by  St.  Paul,  our  "own  righteous- 
ness the  other  he  calls  "  the  rigliteouaness  of  GodP  Is  one  described  as 
the  lav) the  other  is  "  -without  the  law"  Is  one  "  reckoned  to  him  that 
■worketh?"  the  other  is  ''to  him  that  ivorketh  not"  Is  the  one  "  of  debtP"  the 
other  is  "  of  grace."  Does  the  one  give  man  "  -whereof  to  glory  "  because  it  is 
*'of  -works  P"  the  other  "excludes  boasting"  because  it  is  "of  faith."  Does  St. 
Paul  '*  count  all  things  but  loss  that  he  may  win  Christ  and  be  found  in  him  V 
He  has  no  hope  of  succeeding  till  he  has  first  laid  aside  his  o-wn  righteousness, 
as  worthless,  and  put  on,  in  its  stead,  "  the  righteousness  which  is  by  the  faith 
of  Christ."  In  his  view,  these  two  cannot  coalesce  ;  cannot  unite  into  one 
vesture ;  they  are  essentially  inconsistent  in  the  office  of  Justification  ;  so 
that  if  we  trust  in  the  one,  we  cannot  have  the  other ;  if  we  "  go  about  to  estab- 
lish our  own  righteousness,"  it  implies  that  we  have  not  submitted  to,  but  re- 
Jected  the  righteousness  of  God.  Our  justification  must  be  either  of  grace  ex- 
clusively, or  of  works  exclusively.  It  cannot  be  of  both.  "  JK'ot  of  works,  lest 
any  man  should  boast."  If  by  grace,  (says  St.  Paul)  theii  it  is  no  more  of 
-works,  other-wise  grace  is  no  more  grace.  But  if  it  be  of  -works,  then  it  is  no 
more  grace  ;  other-wise  work  is  no  more  work."  "  It  is  not  grace  any  way, 
(says  Augustine)  if  it  be  not  free  every  way." 

Now  between  one  or  the  other  of  these  rival  hopes  must  every  sinner  choose. 
His  choice  of  one  is  necessarily  the  rejection  of  the  other. 


173 


own  inference  ;  we  cannot  be  forced  to  adopt  theirs. 
Their  doctrine  is  now  public  property,  doing  its  good 
or  evil  independently  of  its  authors;  just  as  a  poison, 
or  a  medicine,  works  its  health  or  death  in  those 
who  take  it,  independently  of  the  apothecary  who 
compounded  it.  The  public  must  judge  of  the  com- 
pound, as  to  its  nature  and  consequences,  without  be- 
ing bound  by  the  opinion  of  the  apothecary.  And  so 
the  public  will,  and  can,  make  the  true  inference  as 
to  whether  Oxford  Divinity  is  essentially  as  much 
a  system  of  human  merits,  as  that  of  Rome,  without 
being  governed  by  the  deductions  of  Oxford  Divines. 
And  as  sometimes  the  public  voice  adjudges  to  be  poi- 
sonous in  its  operation  upon  the  human  body,  what 
the  son  of  ^sculapius  has  issued  under  the  name  of 
Panacea;  so  may  it  most  justly  determine  that  what 
has  thus  issued  from  Oxford  as  the  Grand  Restora- 
tive, the  Universal  Elixir  of  Life,  "the  Weapon 
Salve  to  heal  the  Church's  Wounds,"  is  mere  Popery 
disguised ;  "rats  bane,  given  in  figs,"  as  Jackson  says ; 
fraught  with  the  most  baneful  consequences  to  truth 
and  piety;  certain  to  intoxicate  the  Church  with  the 
spiritual  pride  of  a  full  system  of  mere  Pharisaic  ob- 
servances, in  place  of  the  humility  of  "the  power  of 
godliness,"  and  this  just  in  proportion  as  it  shall  pass 
out  of  the  hands  of  its  authors  and  compounders,  and 
become  separated  from  the  antidotes  which  in  spite 
of  their  theory,  it  meets  with  in  them,  and  shall  be 
adopted  into  the  practice  of  disciples  of  equal  zeal, 
but  less  restraint  of  sound  doctrine.  These  will 
carry  out  the  new  system  of  practice.  The  Rudi- 
ment of  Merit,  now  unprofessed,  will  soon  expand 
into  its  development,  boldly  declared.    The  march 


174 


of  Restoration  will  look  back  to  the  present  outset  at 
Oxford,  as  a  propitious  beginning  indeed,  and  good 
^'for  the  times;'"  timid  indeed,  and  slow  and  reservedi 
but  well  suited  to  a  Church  w^hich,  as  these  divines 
say  of  the  Church  of  England,  is  not  privileged  with 
the  ''richer  banquet"  out  of  the  ''depth  and  richness 
the  ancient  services,"  such  as  are  found  in  "  the  Ro- 
man and  Parisian  Breviaries;  but  must,  as  yet,  put 
up  with  "the  homelier  fare  which  a  merciful  Provi- 
dence has  set  before  her,"  because  she  has  declined 
from  something,  (we  are  not  told  what)  in  the  Catho- 
lic Church,  and  has  thus  "  sullied  her  baptismal  robe 
of  purity,  and  is  not  permitted  to  come  into  the  Di- 
vine Presence  till  she  has  done  penance — nor  to  raise 
her  voice  in  the  language  of  joy  and  confidence, 
without  many  a  faltering  note  of  fear  and  self-re- 
proach." She  is  now  ^'in  a  degraded  condition." 
"  She  seemed  to  say  at  the  Reformation,  '  Make  me 
as  one  of  thy  hired  servants;'  and  she  has  been 
graciously  taken  at  her  word ;  lowered  from  her  an- 
cient and  proper  place,  as  the  king's  daughter,  &c., 
into  the  condition  of  a  slave  at  the  table  where  she 
should  preside.  Lower  strains  befit  her  depressed 
condition;  and  with  such,  in  the  English  Liturgy, 
she  is  actually  provided."^ 

How  long  will  it  be  before  the  disciples  of  this 
school  will  consider  the  march  of  Restoration  to  have 
proceeded  far  enough  to  warrant  the  taking  off  of  the 
penance;  the  advancement  of  the  present  slave,  to  the 
daughter's  seat;  the  elevation  of  her  now  faltering 
and  depressed  notes,  to  the  higher  strains  of  the 


'  British  Critic  for  Ap.  1840. 


175 


Roman  and  Parisian  Breviaries ;  the  breaking  off  of 
the  degrading  fetters  put  on  at  the  Reformation,  for 
the  glorious  liberty  of  that  yoke  of  ceremonial  service 
under  which  all  piety,  all  morality,  all  knowledge,  all 
improvement,  all  civilization  groaned  and  travailed 
in  pain  until  Luther  arose,  a  man  of  God,  and  sound- 
ed the  trump  of  Jubilee,  and,  in  the  name  of  the 
Lord,  opened  the  prison  doors  to  them  that  were 
bound? 

We  doubt  not  ''the  Times"  are  fast  hastening  on 
this  second  Reformation,  so  far  as  the  disciples  of  the 
present  Restorationists  are  concerned.  They  are 
evidently  too  much  elated  with  present  success,  to 
be  patient  much  longer  with  the  present  degradation 
of  their  penance-stricken  Church.  We  fear  the  time 
is  fast  drawing  on,  wdien  what  is  now  being  prepared 
for,  and  of  which  the  large  importations  into  Oxford  of 
Roman  and  Parisian  Breviaries,  "for  private  devo- 
tion^^  as  well  as  literary  study,  are  a  sign,  will  be 
ready  to  take  its  stand  in  the  gates,  and  proclaim 
itself  upon  the  house-tops.^    We  must  in  deep  so- 

'  The  article  in  the  British  Critic,  from  which  we  have  taken  the  extracts 
above  given,  is  a  Review  of  the  latest  "  Tract  for  the  Times,"  No.  86,  on  the 
Church  Service;  and  its  expressions  are  just  an  echo  of  that  Tract.  In  that 
Review  we  read  that  whereas  "  the  Liturgies  of  Rome  and  Paris  were,  till  rery 
recently,  sealed  books  to  the  Protestant  world  " — now,  Mr.  Parker,  of  Oxford, 
finds  it  worth  his  while  to  import  a  considerable  number  of  copies,  both  of  the 
Roman  and  Parisian  Breviaries  every  year ;  whence  we  infer  (says  the  Reviewer) 
and  with  great  satisfaction,  that  the  ancient  services  are  coming  to  be  studied, 
not  merely  as  a  matter  of  literature — but  for  purposes  of  private  devotion."  If  the 
selections  from  the  Roman  Breviary,  occupying  one  hundred  pages  of  the  Tracts, 
are  favourable  specimens  of  its  "  hid  treasures,"  we  must  confess  that,  except  as 
it  contains  what  is  also  in  our  own  Bible  and  Prayer  Book,  its  treasures  are  suf- 
ficiently hid.  What  our  Oxford  Divines  mean  by  the  richness  of  the  ancient 
services,  as  displayed  in  these  Breviaries,  is  clearly  seen  in  the  fact  that  they 
have  not  only  constructed  "/or  social  or  private  devotion"  a  full  Matin  ser- 


176 


lemnity  remind  the  Church  of  our  parent-land,  the 
standard-bearer  of  the  Reformation,  object  of  hatred 
for  her  firm  stand  on  the  side  of  rehgious  and  civil 
liberty,  to  all  who  would  bind  the  fetters  of  despotic 
power,  of  bigot-intolerance,  of  priestly  domination,  of 
popish  superstition,  upon  the  minds  and  souls  of 
men;  set  upon  and  surrounded  by  a  combination,  for 
her  abasement,  in  which  the  money,  and  craft,  and 
learning,  and  power  of  all  the  popery  of  Europe  is 
leagued,  in  alliance  with  all  that  radicalism  and  infi- 
delity can  do  to  help  them;  we  must  in  deepest 
sympathy,  and  with  earnest  prayer  for  our  mother 
Church  of  England,  beseech  her  to  remember  the 
word  of  the  Lord:  Satan  hath  desired  to  have  thee 
that  he  may  sift  thee  as  wheats  "  Watch  and  pray 
lest  ye  enter  into  temptation!" 


vice  for  the  commemoration  of  "  Bishop  Ken's  Dat,"  and  also  a  Matin,  Ves- 
per and  Laud  Service  for  "the  Commemoration  of  the  Dead  in  Christ;" 
but  have  followed  most  strictly  the  model  and  peculiarities  of  the  Roman  Bre- 
viary as  to  Nocturns,  Antiphons  and  every  other*  minute  feature  of  order  and 
mode,  with  as  little  reference  to  the  peculiarities  of  the  English  Liturgy  as  if  it 
were  not  in  existence.  Because  the  Romish  Breviary  iutroduces  here  and 
there  little  scraps  of  a  Homily  by  St.  Ambrose,  &c.,  therefore  the  service  for 
Bishop  Ken,  does  the  same  with  a  scrap  of  a  sermon  from  Bishop  Taylor.  Be- 
cause in  the  Romish  services  are  legends  of  the  Saints,  therefore  in  the  Oxford 
service  is  a  legend  of  Bishop  Ken,  which  tells  where  he  was  born  and  educated, 
ordained,  &c. — how  he  brought  Ana-baptists  to  baptism,  was  self-denied,  charita- 
ble, faithful,  &c. — that  he  died  in  the  Holy  Catholic  and  Apostolic  Faith,  &c., 
but  has  not  one  word  by  which  may  be  learned  any  one  distinctive  doctrine  or 
precept  of  the  Gospel  of  Christ. 


CHAPTER  YL 


THE  DOCTRINE  OF  OXFORD  DIVINITY,  AS  TO  THE  NATURE  AND 
OFFICE  OF  JUSTIFYING  FAITH,  EXHIBITED,  AND  COMPARED  WITH 
THAT  OF  THE  R03IISH  CHURCH. 

The  influence  of  the  doctrine  of  Justification,  whether  true  or  false,  upon  the 
body  of  divinity,  in  general — The  sameness  of  the  Oxford  doctrine  and  that 
of  Rome,  tested  by  the  sameness  of  influence  upon  connected  and  subordinate 
doctrines — This,  first  exhibited  as  to  the  doctrine  of  Justifying  Faith — The 
doctrine  of  Faith,  as  held  in  the  Romish  Church,  stated  in  six  propositions — 
The  doctrine  of  Oxford  slated  in  comparison,  under  the  same  propositions, 
shewing  the  nature  and  office  of  Faith,  before  Baptism,  in  Baptism,  and  after 
Baptism — The  profession  of  making  Faith  the  sole  internal  instrument  of 
Justification  examined  and  shown  to  be  without  any  reality — Justification  by 
Faith,  in  this  system,  nothing  but  Justification  by  Christianity — A  rebuke 
from  Bishop  Beveridge. 

The  fundamental  doctrine  that  our  Justification  con- 
sists in  a  Righteousness  Inherent,  as  the  moral  basis 
on  which  alone  "  we  are  accounted  righteous  before 
God."  is  of  such  boundless  influence  upon  the  whole 
structure  of  the  body  of  divinity,  as  necessarily  to 
require  a  marked  and  characteristic  change  in  all 
parts  of  the  Gospel  plan  of  salvation,  more  especially 
in  those  which  are  connected  most  particularly  with 
the  nature  of  sin,  and  the  way  of  deliverance  from  its 
defilement  and  condemnation.  Of  this  subordinat- 
ing influence,  all  the  peculiarities  of  Romish  divinity, 
in  its  several  members,  are  conspicuous  evidences. 

If  we  shall  succeed  in  showing  that  the  funda- 
mental doctrine  of  Oxford  Divinity,  as  to  the  righte- 
ousness of  Justification,  is  of  such  similar  influence, 
that  it  aflects  precisely  the  same  subordinate  doc- 

23 


178 


trines,  in  substantially  the  same  way,  and  with  re- 
ference to  the  same  accommodation ;  so  that  the  tree 
is,  not  only  Romish  in  root  and  trunk,  but,  so  far 
as  it  has  spread  out  doctrinally,  is  Romish  in  ramifi- 
cation also;  it  will  then  be  the  more  manifest  that 
the  difference  between  this  divinity  and  the  true 
divinity,  for  which  our  Reformers  gave  themselves 
to  death,  is  no  mere  logomachy ;  no  mere  differential 
expression,  a  rehus  ad  voces  ;  but  a  difference  of  great 
vital  doctrine,  not  of  one  doctrine  merely,  but  of  the 
system  of  doctrine,  from  corner-stone  to  roof,  a  differ- 
ence which  makes  so  great  a  gulf  between,  that  ac- 
cording to  the  belief  of  Oxford  Divines  themselves, 
it  makes  the  one  side,  or  the  other,    another  Gospel'' 

In  proceeding  to  this  showing,  w^e  begin  with  the 
Nature  and  Office  of  Justifying  Faith.  Next,  to  an 
enquiry  as  to  the  nature  of  the  righteousness  in 
w^hich  the  sinner  is  to  be  Justified,  is  the  question, 
hy  rvhat  means  he  is  to  become  possessed  of  that  righte- 
ousness. The  plain  answer  of  the  Scriptures  is  "  hy 
faith.''  No  doctrine  then  may  be  expected  to  par- 
ticipate more  directly  in  any  essential  peculiarity  of 
view  in  regard  to  justifying  righteousness,  than  that 
of  justifying  faith.  "Hence  it  comes  to  pass  (says 
Chemnitz,)  that  the  devil  is  so  angry  at  the  doctrine 
of  faith.  When  he  could  not  hinder  the  divine  de- 
cree concerning  the  redemption  of  the  human  race, 
he  brought  all  his  arts  to  bear  upon  the  destruction 
or  corruption  of  the  appointed  means  of  its  applica- 
tion, knowing  what  v/as  written  that  the  w^ord 
preached  doej^  not  profit  except  it  be  mixed  wdth 
faith  in  them  that  hear  it." 

The  doctrine  of  the  nature  and  office  of  Justifying 


179 


Faith,  as  held  by  the  Church  of  Rome,  is  squared  in 
entire  consistency  with  her  doctrine  of  Justification 
by  inherent  righteousness.  We  shall  see  the  same 
squaring,  for  the  same  reason,  and  with  the  same 
cardinal  points,  in  view,  in  the  doctrine  of  Oxfordism. 

As  in  both  systems,  the  nature  of  Faith  is  accom- 
modated to  the  position  assigned  to  Baptism,  as  the 
sole  instrument  of  Justification;  so  in  both  there  is  a 
distinction  assumed  in  the  nature  and  efficacy  of 
faith  before  Baptism  and  after  Baptism.  And  this 
distinction  must  be  w^ell  understood  as  the  key  to  the 
whole  matter  in  each. 

What  then  does  the  Church  of  Rome  teach  con- 
cerning faith  before  Baptism,  or  that  which  is  re- 
quired of  Adults  in  order  to  Baptism.?  It  cannot  be 
properly  ^justifying  faith,  because  Baptism  is  made 
'^the  only  instrument  of  Justification^  It  cannot, 
therefore,  be  the  faith  of  justified  or  righteous  per- 
son, and  so  must  be  the  faith  of  the  unrighteous. 
Hence  it  cannot  be  ''a  lively  faith,"  the  "faith  that 
worheth  by  love."  What  then  does  the  Church  of 
Rome  pronounce  as  to  the  nature  and  office  of  Faith 
before  Baptism?  She  anathematises  in  Canon  xii. 
those  who  understand  by  justifying  faith  such  a 
trust  in  the  divine  mercy  as  apprehends  and  accepts, 
in  the  promises  of  the  Gospel,  the  remission  of  sins, 
through  the  mediation  of  Christ;  and  who  hold  that, 
by  such  trust  alone,  we  are  justified  before  God  unto 
eternal  life.     And  she  moreover  pronounces  that 

we  are  said  by  the  Apostle  to  be  justified  by  faith, 
because  faith  is  the  initiatory  step  in  human  salvation, 
the  foundation  and  root  of  all  justification''  And 
just  hoAv  we  are  to  understand  these  words,  we  learn 


180 


from  the  interpretations  of  Andrada,  professedly  ex- 
pounding and  defending  the  doctrines  of  Trent.  He 
says  that  the  power  of  justifying  is  ascribed  to  faith, 
because  it  prepares  the  mind  for  the  receiving  of  jus- 
tification. The  wicked  (he  says)  are  said  to  be  justi- 
fied by  faith,  and  faith  is  the  beginning  and  founda- 
tion of  justification  in  this  sense,  viz :  that  it  opens  the 
door  to  hope  and  charity,  which  works  are  necessary 
to  the  obtaining  of  justification.  Faith,  therefore, 
according  to  the  Trent  decree,  is  the  beginning  and 
preparation  for  Justification,  not  because  it  appre- 
hends the  remission  of  sins  through  Christ,  but  be- 
cause it  excites  the  will  to  such  motions,  or  acts,  as 
are  necessary  to  the  obtaining  of  Justification.  Con- 
sequently, it  is  in  no  sense  a  direct  instrument  of 
obtaining  Justification;  but  only  a  sine-qua-non,  a 
preparation,  as  the  Trent-Council  says,  ''without 
which,  it  is  impossible  to  please  God,  and  obtain  the 
adoption  of  sons." 

By  faith  therefore,  as  a  preparation  for  Justifica- 
tion, the  Church  of  Rome  understands,  (says  Chem- 
nitz,) a  mere  historical  hnorvledge  and  naked  assent, 
by  which,  in  general,  w^e  acknowledge  that  those 
things  are  true  which  are  revealed  concerning  God 
and  his  word,  not  only  in  Scripture,  but  also  in 
those  things  which  are  proposed  under  the  title  of 
traditions.  This  general  assent,  says  the  Priest 
Gandolphy,  is  called  "a  divine  faith,"  because  it  is 
based  on  the  testimony  of  God,  in  distinction  from 
human  faith  as  based  on  the  testimony  of  men.  "It 
essentially  excludes  the  existence  of  doubt,"  "and 
consists  in  believing,  without  doubting,  truths  re- 
vealed by  the  Deity." 


181 

Such  then  is  the  fides  informata,  or  the  unformed 
faith  which  is  required  in  Adults  for  Baptism,  which 
is  confessedly  said  by  the  Apostle  to  be  justifying; 
but  until  Baptism  give  it  some  additional  quality, 
is  a  mere  naked  assent^  a  mere  'preparative  for  hope 
and  charity,  and  all  good  rvorks;  not  a  living  faith, 
but  still divine  J  ^  as  Gandolphy  says,  because  "found- 
ed on  the  testimony  of  God."  And  yet  it  is  not 
necessary  that  such  testimony  be  drawn  directly  from 
God's  word.  The  testimony  of  the  Church,  (says  the 
same  Priest)  derived  from  God,  is  a  motive  sufficient 
to  command  the  soul  to  render  a  full,  perfect  and 
steady  faith.  Now  this  motive  being  supernatural 
and  divine,  the  assent  of  the  soul  becomes  a  super- 
natural and  divine  act,  for  which  a  special  grace  is 
necessary,  and  forms  what  is  termed  a  supernatural 
and  divine  faith.  It  is  even  an  act  of  the  soul,  as 
distinct,  and  as  much  above  a  moral  or  human  act, 
as  God  himself  is  raised  above  all  created  objects."^ 
Thus  is  a  mere  naked  assent  to  the  truth  of  the  testi- 
mony of  God,  or  of  the  Church,  w^hich  the  wicked 
may  have,  as  well  as  the  righteous,  which  the  devils 
have  and  tremble,  for  they  believe  on  the  testimony 
of  God,  exalted  into  a  divine,  supernatural  act,  re- 
quiring a  special  grace.  But  when  asked  how  such 
naked  faith  can  justify  the  soul  before  God,  they 
answer  that  in  justification  there  is  something  added 
to  it,  to  wit,  charity,  which  gives  it  greater  weight 
and  merit.  Andrada,  for  instance,  says  that,  "not 
by  faith  only,  but  by  faith,  together  with  hope  and 
charity,  we  apprehend  Christ  for  righteousness — 

'  Gandolphy's  Defence,  vol.  II.  p.  490. 


182 

that  in  the  Epistle  to  the  Hebrews,  the  Justification 
of  many  is  attributed  to  faith,  because  faith  excited 
those  illustrious  men  to  the  good  works  of  hope  and 
charity.  Now  since  it  is  declared  in  chap.  vii.  of 
Trent,  that  no  justification  can  take  place  until  Bap- 
tism; that  in  that  sacrament,  ''the  love  of  God  is 
shed  abroad  in  the  heart  by  the  Holy  Ghost,  by 
which  we  are  renewed  in  the  spirit  of  our  minds,"  it 
follows  that  it  is  in  Baptism  that  the  unformed  faith 
which  preceded  it,  becomes  fides  formata,  that  is, 
becomes  joined  with  hope  and  charity,  so  as  to  be  no 
longer  a  mere  assent  of  the  mind,  preparing  the  way 
for  justification,  but  a  liviiig  principle,  an  inherent 
righteousness  by  which,  in  proportion  to  its  degree, 
the  justification  first  infused  in  Baptism  is  continued. 
So  that  before  Baptism,  the  faith  of  the  Adult  com- 
ing to  that  sacrament  is  a  naked,  unvivified  assent, 
justifying  only  as  preparing  the  way  for  Justification ; 
a  ^'divine  faith,"  however  dead,  precisely  as  the  faith  of 
devils  is  divine,  because  resting  on  the  testimony  of 
God.  After  Baptism,  it  is  the  same  faith,  but  with 
a  new  heart  given  to  it,  a  regenerate  faith,  having 
the  spiritual  qualities  of  hope  and  love  infused,  or 
superadded,  in  virtue  of  which,  and  not  because  of 
any  special  agency  in  itself,  it  justifies  before  God. 

What  utter  ruin  all  this  makes  in  the  Scriptural 
doctrine  of  Justifying  Faith  we  will  not  stop  to  show. 
The  above  account  consists  chiefly  of  translation  and 
condensation  from  the  chapter  of  Chemnitz,  De  Fide 
Justificante,  in  which  he  exhibits  the  substance  of 
the  doctrine  of  Trent.  Were  we  reasoning  with  Ro- 
manists, we  should  be  more  particular  in  citing  their 
own  words.    But  as  our  present  object  is  exclusively 


183 

among  Protestants,  the  statements  of  a  writer  so 
learned,  and  so  universally  confided  in  by  all  Pro- 
testants, as  well  in  England,  as  on  the  continent, 
will  suffice  for  a  view  of  one  side  of  the  comparison 
we  are  aiminof  at.^ 

The  main  points  of  this  Romanism  to  be  kept  in 
view,  in  reference  to  the  comparison  now  to  be  made 
with  Oxford  Divinity,  are 

1.  That  Faith  before  Baptism  is  not  and  cannot  be 
a  living  faith,  that  'Svhich  worketh  by  love." 

2.  That  Faith  before  Baptism  is  said  to  Justify, 
or  to  be  an  instrument  of  Justification,  only  as  a  siiie- 
qua-non,  only  as  a  necessary  preparation  for,  and  that 
which  leads  to.  Baptism,  which  itself  is  the  only  real 
instrument  of  Justification. 

3.  This  faith,  so  dead,  is  nevertheless  a  divine, 
supernatural  gift,  based  on  the  testimony  of  God, 
through  the  Creeds  and  traditionary  doctrines  of  the 
Church,  independently  of  a  direct  application  to  the 
Scriptures,  as  the  Primary  and  only  Authoritative 
Rule  of  Faith. 

4.  That  this  faith,  before  Baptism,  instead  of  being 
in  any  sense  Justifying,  until  after  the  sinner  be- 
comes Justified  in  BajJtism,  must  itself  be  first  justi- 
fied, or  made  a  living  faith  by  Baptism. 

5.  That  Faith  when  regenerate  and  justified  in 
Baptism  is  not  such  a  trust  in  the  divine  mercy  as 
apprehends  and  accepts  remission  of  sins  through  the 
mediation  of  Christ,  and  justifies  the  soul  through 
his  righteousness  accounted  to  the  believer. 

6.  That  after  it  has  become  a  regenerate  and  lively 


1  See  Chemnitz  Exam.  Dec.  Concil.  Trident,  p.  155 — 158. 


184 


faith,  by  the  love  of  God  shed  abroad  in  the  heart, 
by  Baptism,  so  that  it  is  now  joined  with  hope  and 
love,  it  then  only  continues  or  sustains  the  Justifica- 
tion already  completed,  in  Baptism,  before  it  was 
alive:  and  even  this,  not  in  any  proper  sense,  as  an 
instrument  applying  the  righteousness  of  Christ,  but 
only  as  united  to,  and  acting  in  common  with,  all 
other  Christian  virtues  and  works. 

We  proceed  to  show  that  all  these  several  proposi- 
tions are  contained,  and  strongly  asserted,  in  Oxford 
Divinity. 

1.  That  the  faith  of  the  Adult  coming  to  Baptism, 
is  not  and  cannot  be  a  living  faith — that  which 
worketh  by  love." 

The  Catechism  of  our  Church,  requires  of  those 
who  come  to  be  baptized,  repentance,  whereby  they 
forsake  sin,  and  faith,  whereby  they  steadfastly  be- 
lieve the  promises  of  God  made  to  them  in  that 
Sacrament."  Precisely  the  same  are  required  for 
the  Lord's  Supper.  We  have  been  accustomed  to 
suppose  that  by  these  was  intended  a  godly  sorrorv, 
and  a  godly  or  living  faith ;  that  as  there  is  no  true 
repentance  without  love  to  God,  so  there  can  be  no 
truly  penitent  /azV^,  without  love  and  life.  We  must 
be  pardoned  this  grievous  error,  since  our  Dr.  Bar- 
row, in  the  same  darkness,  not  to  mention  a  thousand 
others,  has  told  us  concerning  this  repentance  and 
faith  as  required  for  baptism,  that  "  each  importeth  a 
being  renewed  in  mind,  in  judgment,  in  will,  in  affec- 
tion; a  serious  embracing  of  Christ's  doctrine,  and  a 
steadfast  resolution  to  adhere  thereto  in  practice. 
This  is  that  death  to  sin,  and  resurrection  to  righteous- 
ness, that  being  buried  with  Christ  and  rising  again 


V 


185 

with  him,  so  as  to  walk  in  newness  of  life^  which  the 
baptismal  action  signifies.'"^  But,  unhappily,  Doctor 
Pusey  and  Doctor  Barrow  are  not  agreed.  ''Faith 
and  repentance  (says  the  former)  are  necessary  to 
the  new  birth;  but  they  are  not  the  new  birth ''^ 

What  then  is  Faith  before  Baptism  and  required 
for  Baptism?  We  answer  by  first  stating,  accord- 
ing to  Mr.  Newman,  that  ''  what  faith  was  in  the  days 
of  the  Son  of  Man  for  temporal  blessings,  such  sure- 
ly it  is  now  under  the  ministration  of  the  Spirit  for 
heavenly,"  (p.  268.)  This  seems  a  promising  be- 
ginning. One  hopes  for  something  clear  and  sound 
from  such  premises.  Again — "  Faith  is  substanti- 
ally the  same  act  under  all  circumstances,  or  it  would 
not  be  called  faith;  and  so  far,  it  has  always  the 
same  office,"  (p.  278.)  Hence  we  hope  to  see  that 
faith  before  Baptism,  and  after  Baptism,  as  they  are 
both  certainly  called  faith,  are  substantially  the  same, 
and  of  one  office — both  alike  Justifying,  and  in  the 
same  sense.  But  now  our  encouragement  is  at  an 
end — for  says  Mr.  N.  ''Faith,  as  gaining  its  virtue 
from  Baptism,  is  one  thing  before  that  sacred  ordi- 
nance; another  after:'    Baptism  raises  it  from  acoTZ- 

'  Barrow  on  the  Doctrine  of  the  Sacrament.  2  Views  of  Holy  Bap- 

tism, p.  178. 

3  Aquinas  furnishes  us  with  all  this  in  equal  plainness.  He  states  a  variety 
of  opinions  as  to  whether  faith  before  Baptism, ^Je*  informis,  dead  faith,  is  the 
same  essentially  with  that  after  Baptism,  Jtdes  formata,  living  faith,  or  not. 
Some  thought  that  God,  in  the  infusion  of  the  latter,  expelled  the  former — but 
that  would  not  do;  because,  as  both  were  made  to  be  gifts  of  God,  it  did  not 
seem  right  to  suppose  that  he  would  expel  his  own  gift.  The  conclusion  of 
Aquinas  is  precisely  that  of  Mr.  N.,  that  the  dead  and  living  faith  are  substan- 
tially the  same  faith.  Fides  informis  et  fides  formata  unus  et  idem  habitus  est, 
his  diversis  nominibus  appellatus,  ab  ipsa  charitate,  quae  est  illius  forma.  P.  1- 
2,  Q.4,  A.  4. 
24 


186 


ditio7i,  into  the  instrument  of  Justification — from  a 
mere  forerunner,  into  its  accredited  representative^ 
This  we  should  suppose  to  be  a  very  substantial  dif- 
ference both  of  nature  and  office.  To  be  a  condition 
and  forerunner  only ;  and  to  be  an  instrument  and 
representative,  we  should  think  was  not  so  substan- 
tially the  same  thing.  But  the  view  opens.  ''Justi- 
fying faith  may  be  considered  in  two  main  points  of 
view,  either  as  it  is  in  itself,  and  as  it  exists  in  fact, 
in  those  who  are  under  grace,''  (that  is  before  Bap- 
tism and  after  Baptism.)  "In  the  former  point  of 
view,  (before  Baptism,)  it  is  not  necessarily  even  a 
moral  virtue;  but  when  illuminated  by  love,  and  en- 
nobled by  the  Spirit,"  (which  only  takes  place  in 
Baptism,  according  to  this  divinity,)  "it  is  a  name 
for  all  graces  together,"  (295.)  So  then,  when  our 
Church  requires  faith  as  a  preparation  for  Baptism, 
she  does  not  require  what  is  necessarily  a  moral 
virtue!  Hence  we  read  that  "nothing  is  said  of  it 
before  Baptism,  that  is  not  said  of  restitution,  as  a 
necessary  condition  to  Baptism,"  (275.)  Before  Bap- 
tism, "it  is  without  availmg  power,  without  life  in 
the  sight  of  God,  as  regards  our  Justification,"  (275,) 
that  is,  as  regards  "the  indwelling  of  the  Spirit," 
which  is  Justification  according  to  this  system.  This 
representation  is  expounded  in  a  passage  on  p.  277, 
in  which  faith  before  Baptism  is  called  "a  moral 
mV^we,"  as  its  highest  possible  condition;  after  Bap- 
tism "  a  ^race."  The  latter  as  '^lively;'''  the  former 
as  ^'rvilling  rvithout performing being  only  "full  of 
terror  and  disquiet,  vague,  and  dull-minded^  feeble, 
sickly,  wayward,  fitful,  inoperative,"  "  nothing  till 
Christ  regenerate  it"  in  Baptism.    This  faith  must 


187 


be  baptized  before  it  can  be  a  living  faith.  When 
it  comes  for  Baptism,  it  is  on  the  point  of  being  rid 
of  itself  and  hid  in  Christ.  It  comes  to  the  Fount  of 
Life  to  be  made  alive,  as  the  dry  bones  in  the  Pro- 
phet's vision  were  brought  together  in  preparation 
for  the  Breath  of  God  to  quicken  them,  and  He  who 
makes  all  things  new,  as  he  makes  sinners  righteous, 
&c.,  so  also  by  His  presence  converts  what  is  a  con- 
dition of  obtaining  favour,  into  the  means  of  holding 
and  enjoying  it,"  (277,  8.)  One  would  now  suppose 
that  a  dead  faith  and  a  living,  were  not  ''substanti- 
ally the  same,'"  or  ''  of  one  office.^'' 

Such  then  is  this  faith  before  Baptism,  though  called 
by  Doctor  Barrow,  &c.  &c.,  the  inward  grace  rvhich 
Baptism  signifies.''  Such,  according  to  this  system, 
was  the  dead  faith  of  Paul,  the  converted,  before  he 
was  baptized;  of  the  three  thousand  who  were  con- 
verted at  the  Pentecost,  until  they  w^ere  baptized — 
such  was  the  faith  of  Cornelius  and  his  household 
and  friends,  before  they  were  baptized,  although  he 
was  ''  a  devout  man''  and  "feared  God,  and  prayed 
to  God  always,"  and  *'his  prayers  came  up  for  a 
memorial  before  God,"  and  he  and  all  his  friends 
heard  and  believed  the  word  of  Christ,  at  the  lips  of 
St.  Peter,  and  on  all  of  them  fell  the  Holy  Ghost. 
Still  their  faith  must  have  been  dead,  vague,  inope- 
rative, unregenerate,  needing  to  be  converted  by  Bap- 
tism, because  it  was  faith  before  Baptism',  and  so 
says  Doctor  Pusey,  who  more  than  any  one  else, 
boldly  carries  out  the  system.  "  Cornelius  had  not 
Christian  faith,  nor  love,  nor  prayer,  for  as  yet  he 
knew  not  Christ;  he  could  not  call  God  Father,  {to 
whom  he  had  praijed  alway, )  because  he  knew  not 


188 

the  Son.  Faith  and  repentance  are  necessary  in  adults 
to  the  new  birth,  but  they  are  not  the  new  birth.'" 

This  may  suffice  for  our  first  proposition,  and  one 
would  suppose  should  suffice  for  the  whole  system, 
with  all  who  know  the  Scriptures,  and  are  not  walk- 
ing in  mysticism. 

2.  That  faith  before  Baptism  is  said  to  Justify,  or 
to  be  an  instrument  of  Justification,  only  as  a  sine- 
qua-nmi,  as  a  necessary  pi^eparation  for,  and  as  that 
which  leads  to,  Baptism,  which  itself  is  the  only  real 
instrument  of  the  first  Justification. 

This  proposition  requires  but  few  citations  out  of 
the  many  which  might  be  adduced.  What  (asks 
Mr.  N.)  does  the  Scripture  say  of  faith  before  Bap- 
tism, except  as  a  necessary  step  to  Baptism?  Its 
highest  praise  before  Baptism  is  that  it  leads  to  it; 
as  its  highest  efficacy  after  it  is  that  it  comes  from 
it.''  Nothing  is  said  of  it  before  Baptism,  that  is 
not  said  of  Repentance  or  of  Restitution,  which  are 
also  necessary  conditions."  "  Upon  these,  not  in  and 
through  them,  comes  Gospel  grace,  meeting,  not  co- 
operating with  them,"  (p.  275,  6).  '*We  are  saved 
(says  Dr.  Pusey)  by  faith  hringing  us  to  Baptism, 
and  by  Baptism,  God  saves  us"^ — "faith  being  but 
the  sine-qua-non^  the  necessary  condition  on  our  parts 
for  duly  receiving  the  grace  of  Christ."^  This  writer 
considers  it  "the  essence  of  sectarian  doctrine  to  con- 
sider faith,  and  not  the  sacraments,  as  the  proper  in- 
strument of  Justification  and  other  gospel  gifts,  in- 
stead of  holding  that  the  grace  of  Christ  comes  to  us 


1  Views  of  Holy  Baptism,  p.  1 77,  8.  2  Views  of  Baptism,  p.  49.  Am.  Ed. 
3  lb.  p.  5. 


189 


altogether  from  without  P  And  it  was  to  correct  this 
undue  elevation  of  faith,  in  other  words,  to  degrade 
that  which  the  Scriptures  every  where  speak  of  as 
the  only  instrument  of  Justification,  into  a  dead,  in- 
operative, unmeaning  nothing,  for  the  sake  of  elevat- 
ing Baptism  into  ''Salvation,  the  Cross  and  the  Resur- 
rection,'" (p.  142)  denying  that  there  is  ''any  separa- 
tion, except  in  thought,  between  the  outward  form 
and  the  inward  substance,"  (p.  206)  denying  even 
the  language  of  our  Article  that  Baptism  is  *'a  sign," 
saying  it  is  ''not  a  sign,  but  the  putting  on  of  Christ 
(102)  it  was  for  this,  we  are  told,  that  Dr.  Pusey's 
laboured  work  on  Holy  Baptism  was  written."^ 

Now  the  reader  will  perhaps  remember  such  pas- 
sages as  the  following  in  Dr.  Pusey's  Letter  to  the 
Bishop  of  Oxford,  viz.,  "Justification  comes  through 
the  Sacraments,  is  received  hy  faith,'^  &c.  "The 
merits  of  Christ  applied  in  Baptism  hy  the  Spirit, 
and  received  hy  a  lively  faith,  complete  our  Justifica- 
tion for  the  time  being." 

iThat  faith  which  Mr.  Newman  can  hardly  call  a  moral  virtue,  and  which 
he  says  is  not  necessarily  one,  he  even,  in  one  place,  denies  the  name  of  faith, 
80  dead  is  it  and  of  no  account  in  his  sight.  "  Faith  (he  says)  does  not  pre- 
cede Justification,  (that  is  Baptism),  but  Justification  precedes  faith  and  makes 
it  Justifying,  so  that  the  faith  required  for  baptism  is  not  faith."  Truly  the  zeal 
of  his  system  hath  eaten  him  up.  This  entire  degradation,  into  utter  contempt, 
of  the  spiritual  qualification  for  Adult  baptism  is  a  most  impressive  comment 
upon  the  real  spirituality,  both  in  essence  and  tendency,  of  what  in  language, 
so  mysterious  and  mystical,  seems  so  spiritual.  Il  is  just  the  opus  operatiim  of 
Rome.  We  must  fear,  when  the  repentance  and  faith  required  alike  for  Bap- 
tism and  the  Lord's  Supper,  are  degraded  into  dead  things  hardly  worth  men- 
tioning in  the  matter  of  salvation,  for  the  sake  of  elevating  an  outward  sign  into 
the  highest  seat  of  spiritual  dignity  and  efficacy.  Spiritual  -words  do  not  al- 
ways express  spiritual  vieivs.  Mysticism  and  spirituality  are  as  much  alike  as 
the  foolish  and  wise  virgins  in  the  parable — both  have  lamps — both  shine — but 
mysticism  has  no  oil  in  its  vessel  with  its  lamp.  When  the  Bridegroom  cometh, 
its  light  is  gone  out  in  darkness. 


190 


Again — ''The  instrumental  power  of  Faith  cannot 
interfere  with  the  instrumental  power  of  Baptism ; 
because  Faith  is  the  sole  justifier,  not  in  contrast  to 
all  means  and  agencies  whatever^ — but  to  all  other 
graces.  When  then  Faith  is  called  the  sole  instru- 
ment, this  means  the  sole  internal  instrument,  not 
the  sole  instrument  of  any  kind."^ 

It  is  exceedingly  probable,  that  most  readers  of 
these  passages,  as  they  stand  unqualified  in  Dr. 
Pusey's  letter,  have  supposed  that  they  referred  to 
faith  in  the  common  religious  use  of  the  word,  faith 

preceding  Justification,  that  which  he  has  who  re- 
pents and  believes,  before  he  is  baptized;  and  they 
have  supposed  probably  that  such  faith  was  indeed 
made  an  internal,  and  the  sole  internal  instrument, 
while  an  external  instrumentality  only  was  given  to 
Baptism.  But  they  are  deceived.  Faith  ^e/bre  Bap- 
tism is  not  in  the  least  referred  to  in  these  passages. 
If  they  will  read  them  again,  they  will  see  it  is  ''a 
lively  faith"  that  is  spoken  of.  But  this  cometh  only 
from  Baptism.  All  before  is  dead  and  inoperative 
and  unregenerate — a  mere  sine-qua-non,  no  more  in- 
strumental in  Justification  than  is  restitution.  So 
that,  whenever  faith,  in  these  writers  is  spoken  of  as 
in  any  other  sense,  justifying,  let  the  reader  remem- 
ber that  it  is  faith  after  Baptism,  a  justified  faith. 
There  is  too  much  '•^reserve!''  in  Dr.  Pusey's  state- 
ments on  this  subject  in  his  letter.  A  reader,  not 
otherwise  informed,  would  hardly  suspect  the  real 
restriction  of  his  meaning.    There  is  not  a  line  in  all 


1  Pusey's  Letter,  pp.  42,  3,  4.  These  passages  are  quoted  by  Dr.  P.  from 
Mr.  Newman. 


191 


his  professed  confession  of  faith,  in  his  Letter  to  the 
Bishop  of  Oxford,  by  which  a  reader,  unenlightened 
by  other  means,  can  get  an  idea  of  a  distinction  being 
made  between  faith  before,  and  faith  after  Baptism; 
or  that  by  the  faith  spoken  of  as  the  sole  internal  in- 
strument, is  not  meant  that  by  which  in  our  usual 
understanding  of  things,  the  unbaptized,  but  peni- 
tent, sinner  comes  to  Christ,  and  prepares  for  bap- 
tism :  w^hile  in  reality  that  faith  is  not  mentioned, 
and  not  a  line  is  devoted,  in  Dr.  Pusey's  Confession^ 
to  the  great  question  what  a  penitent  soul,  just 
awakened  and  turned  to  God,  must  do  to  be  saved; 
whether  he  must  believe,  or  hcnv  he  must  believe,  or 
rvhat  sort  of  faith  he  must  have,  or  how  it  operates  ; 
nothing  is  hinted  but  that  he  must  be  Baptized. 
The  whole  account  of  Justifying  Faith,  in  Dr.  Pu- 
sey's Letter,  has  reference  to  its  influence  after  a 
Justification  by  Baptism;  after  ii  has  itself  been  con- 
verted, regenerated,  justified,  raised  from  death,  made 
operative  by  being  Baptized.  But  this  is  what  few 
would  suspect  from  the  prim.a  facie,  showing  of  the 
Confession.  We  do  not  like  this  Reserve  in  com- 
municating religious  knowledge'^ 

3.  That  this  Faith  which  precedes  Baptism  and  is 
dead,  is  nevertheless  a  divine  supernatural  gift,  and 
based  on  the  testimony  of  God,  through  the  creeds  and 
traditionary  doctrine  of  the  Church,  independently  of 
any  direct  application  to  the  Scriptures  as  the  j^^" 
mary  and  only  Authoritative  Ride  of  Faith. 

''By  faith,  (says  Mr.  N.,)  is  meant  the  mind's  per- 
ception or  knowledge  of  heavenly  things,  arising 
from  an  instinctive  trust  in  the  divinity  or  truth  of 
the  external  words,  informing  it  concerning  them." 


192 


This  instinctive  trust,  he  says,  is  "a  wore?/ instinct, 
supernaturally  implanted  and  independent  of  expe- 
rience;" it  is  an  instinct,  just  as  the  trust  of  the 
mind  to  the  testimony  of  sense  is  an  instinct/  Of 
this  instinctive  faith,  the  inward  grace  of  God  is  the 
first  cause  f  yet  it  is  ''mere  faith''  (dead);  love  being 
afterward  imparted  in  Baptism,  (287);  and  yet  this 
faith,  though  "supernatural,"  and  the  gift  of  ''the 
inward  grace  of  God,"  is  not  a  practical  principle, 
nor  peculiar  to  religious  men,"  (289);  is  ''  not  an  ex- 
cellence, except  it  be  grafted  into  a  heart  that  has 
grace,"  i.  e.  until  baptized;  till  then  it  is  ''not  a  virtue 
or  grace,  else  evil  spirits  could  not  possess  it''  "  Devils 
believe  and  tremble. — Thus  dread  and  despair  are 
the  essential  properties  of  the  devils'  faith;  hope  or 
trust  of  religious  (or  baptized)  faith;  but  both  are  in 
their  nature  one  and  the  same  faith,  as  being  simply 
the  acceptance  of  God's  word  about  the  future  and  un- 
seen" {2Q0y 

1  Lectures,  p.  289.! 

2  All  these  points  are  given  in  Aquinas,  as  in  Mr.  N.,  except  that  the  former 
attempts  a  distinction  between  the  faith  of  devils  and  that  of  unbaptized  per- 
sons, which  the  latter  gives  up.  That  the  dead  faith  of  the  unbaptized  is  the 
supernatural  gift  of  God,  Aquinas  asserts.  Fides  informis  est  donum  Dei.  That 
it  is  destitute  of  moral  excellence,  because  not  a  grace,  and  without  love,  he  also 
maintains ;  Fides  et  opus  sine  charitaie  possunt  esse  ;  sed  sine  charitate,  proprie 
loquendo,  virtutes  non  sunt.  But  he  cannot  venture  to  say  that  it  is  no  better 
than  that  of  the  devils.  Its  peculiarity,  in  his  view,  is  that  it  is  based  on  the 
testimony  of  God,  and  therefore  is  a  gift  from  grace ;  but  he  denies  that  devils 
believe  on  such  testimony.  Vident  enim  multa  manifesta  indicia,  ex  quibus 
percipiunt  doctrinam  ecclesiae  a  Deo  esse  ;  quamvis  ipsi  res  quas  Ecclesia  docet 
non  videant — P.  1,  2  ;  Q.  A.  1. — Fides  in  daemonibus  coacta  est,  non  laudabilis, 
nec  donum  a  gratia  Q.  6.  A.  2. 

But  Mr.  N.  considers  that  devils  do  believe  on  the  testimony  of  God.  "They 
believe  in  a  Judgment  to  come;  and  on  what  but  God's  infallible  word  announ- 
cing it  ?"  Hence,  he  makes  of  necessity,  their  faith  to  be  the  same  as  that  of 
all  the  unbaptized,  no  more  dead  than  theirs. 


193 


Thus  the  faith  which  is  required  for  baptism,  in 
connection  with  repentance,  the  faith  of  a  repent- 
ing sinner,  seeking  mercy  through  Christ,  is  identi- 
fied with  the  faith  of  devils,  equally  dead,  and  equal- 
ly without  moral  virtue  or  excellence,  while  each, 
the  faith  of  the  devil,  and  the  faith  of  the  penitent 
catechumen,  is  called  a  moral,  supernatural  instinct, 
implanted  by  the  imvard  grace  of  God! !  Was  ever 
truth  like  this ! 

Now  we  are  prepared  to  understand  that  such  faith 
should  be  rested  on  the  testimony  of  God,  through  the 
creeds  of  the  Church,  independently  of  all  consulta- 
tion of  the  Scriptures,  as  the  Primary  and  only  Rule 
of  Faith.  Such  is  Oxford  doctrine.  Mr  Newman 
contends  that  ''the  sacred  volume  was  never  in 
tended,  and  is  not  adapted  to  teach  our  creed,  however 
certain  it  is  that  we  can  prove  our  creed  from  it, 
when  it  has  once  been  taught  us."  He  contends  for 
''the  insufficiency  of  the  mere  private  study  of  Holy 
Scripture  (i.  e.  without  the  precomposed  creed  of  the 
Church  as  a  guide)  for  the  arriving  at  the  exact  and 
entire  truth  which  it  really  contains."  ''From  the 
very  first  (he  says)  the  rule  has  been,  as  a  matter  of 
fact,  for  the  Church  to  teach  the  truth,  and  then  ap- 
peal to  Scripture  in  vindication  of  its  own  teaching," 
while  the  way  of  heretics  from  the  first  has  been  "to 
elicit  a  systematic  doctrine  from  the  scattered  no- 
tices OF  THE  TRUTH  which  Scripturc  contains.''  There- 
fore the  creeds  of  the  Church  are  said  to  be  ''divinely 
provided f'^  "a  gift  equaJhj  from  GocV  with  Holy 
Scripture;  this,  the  ''record,''  that,  the  ^'interpreter,'' 


'  Newman's  Hist,  of  the  Arians,  pD.  Sn,  56. 

25 


194 


of  necessary  truth  ;^  and  so  it  is  contended  that  in 
primitive  times  ''the  great  duty  of  the  Christian 
teacher  was  to  unfold  the  sacred  truths  in  due  order, 
and  not  to  insist  prematurely  on  the  difficulties," 
(that  is  the  spiritual  doctrines)  "or  to  apply  the 
PROMISES."^  Among  our  Oxford  men,  the  matters 
to  be  sacredly  reserved  from  the  catechumen,  are 
such  as  the  Atonement,  because,  says  Tract  No.  80, 
"fully  to  know  that  we  are  saved  by  faith  in  Christ 
only,  is  a  great  secret^  the  knowledge  of  which  can  only 
he  obtained  hy  obedience,  as  the  crown  and  end  of  holi- 
ness of  life^  But  this  Reserve  can  only  be  used, 
now  that  the  Scriptures  are  in  all  hands,  by  discoun- 
tenancing the  free  use  of  them  by  the  uninitiated, 
the  neophytes,  and  shutting  them  up,  virtually,  to 
the  teaching  of  the  Church,  so  far  as  her  minis- 
ters choose  to  communicate  it.  Hence  the  stern 
war  of  Oxford  divines  against  the  study  of  the  Evi- 
dences of  Christianity,  as  a  way  of  becoming  estab- 
lished in  the  truth,  instead  of  hearing  the  Church, 
and  trusting  by  an  ^'instinctive  faith"  in  her  testi- 
mony f  hence  the  complaint  that  "  Protestants  dis- 
pense with  the  Church,  by  basing  the  genuineness 
and  authenticity  of  the  Scriptures  on  history  and 
criticism;"^  Paley's  Evidences  being  as  much  an  ob- 
ject of  aversion  to  these  writers,  as  substituted  for 
the  testimony  of  the  Church,  as  his  Moral  Philosophy 

1  Tract  No.  71,  p.  5.  Whatever  is  the  jinal  interpreter  of  Scripture  must  be 
the  final  Arbiter  of  Faith.  If  one  goes  among  people  of  a  strange  language, 
his  interpreter  is  his  only  guide  to  the  knowledge  of  their  words.  It  is  one 
thing  to  call  Tradition  the  Interpreter,  another  to  call  it  a  main  help  in  inter- 
pretation of  Scripture.  In  the  former  sense  it  would  be  to  us  in  place  of  the 
Scriptures  ;  In  the  latter  it  is  a  witness  and  handmaid  to  them. 

2  Hist,  of  the  Arians,  p,  57.       3  See  British  Critic  No.  51.        ^  ib.  65. 


195 


is  in  comparison  with  the  Philosophy  of  Plato. 
Hence,  because  the  Church  of  Rome  requires  this 
implicit  faith  in  the  Church,  not  sending  her  sons  to 
the  Scriptures,  but  requiring  them  to  hear  what 
they  contain  hy  and  on  her  testimony,  it  "must  be  al- 
lowed the  praise,  that  it  was  ever  distinguished  as  a 
pillar  of  the  truth''  so  that  ''the  Romanist  cannot  fail 
to  think  it  a  great  defect  in  the  English  Church, 
that  she  has  no  authoritative  voice  of  her  orvn,  and 
cannot  put  forth  the  Bible  in  the  name  of  the  English 
Church;  and  therefore  is  driven  to  make  the  Bible 
stand  by  itself,  by  a  cumbrous  apparatus  of  Evi- 
dences.""^  Hence  it  is  maintained  that  ''young  men," 
catechumens,  "though  they  may  not  be  able  formally 
to  state  the  ground  of  their  faith,  yet  they  do  receive 
it,  whether  they  would  say  so  or  not,  on  the  authority 
of  the  Churchy  Hence  also  it  is  said  to  be  "  natural 
and  proper  that  youth  should  have  a  comparatively 
external  knowledge  of  religion.  Do  what  we  will,  we 
cannot  make  its  knowledge  other  than  external — the 
opinions  of  youth  are  not  so  much  in  religion,  as 
about  religion."^  *'When  therefore  youth,  in  due 
season  make  a  right  religious  choice,  it  is  not  owing 
to  clearness  of  intellect,  &c.,  but  to  the  possession  of 
certain  habitual  ways  of  thinking  and  feeling,  which 
we  are  not  ashamed  to  call  wholesome  prejudices,  con- 
stituting our  notion  of  the  believing  temper."  ^  Thus 
we  come  round  again  to  the  'Hnstinctive  faith''  which 
precedes  baptism,  faith  in  the  Church,  faith  without 
distinct  knowledge;  engaged  only  upon  the  external 
of  religion,  the  naked  assent  of  the  catechumen  of  the 


•See  British  Critic  No.  64. 


2  lb.  p.  64. 


3Ib.  p.  41. 


196 


Church  of  Rome.  And  this  is  all  that  is  required  of 
a  sinner  prior  to  being  Baptized ! ! 

4.  That  Faith,  instead  of  being  in  any  sense  an 
instrument  of  Justification  in  Baptism,  is  itself  first 
Justified,  made  Regenerate,  and  living,  hij  Baptism. 

Thus,  says  Mr.  Newman. 

*'  Faith  being  the  appointed  representative  of  Baptism,  derives  its 
authority  and  virtue  from  that  which  it  represents.  It  is  justifying 
because  of  Baptism  ;  it  is  the  faith  of  the  Baptized — of  the  regene- 
rate ;  that  is,  of  the  Justified.  Faith  does  not  precede  Justification  ; 
but  justification  precedes  it,  and  makes  it  justifying.  Baptism  is  the 
primary  instrument,  and  creates  faith  to  be  what  it  is,  and  otherwise 
is  not,  giving  it  power  and  rank,  and  constituting  it  as  its  own  suc- 
cessor. Each  has  its  own  ofl^ice,  Baptism  at  the  time,  Faith  ever 
after — the  Sacraments,  the  instrumental,  Faith  the  sustaining 
cause."^ 

5.  That  Faith  when  regenerate  and  justified  in 
Baptism,  is  not  such  a  trust  in  the  divine  mercy  as 
apprehends,  embraces,  or  lays  hold  on  the  righteous- 
ness of  Christ  for  remission  of  sins,  and  thus  justifies 
the  soul  before  God. 

Now  we  have  not  been  accustomed  to  such  lan- 
guage. In  King  Edward  the  Sixth's  Catechism, 
faith  is  said  to  be  trust  alone,  that  doth  lay  hand 
upon"  the  righteousness  of  God. ^  The  Homilies  say 
that  faith  is  ''a  sure  trust  of  the  mercy  of  God 
through  Christ,"  and  ''sends  us  to  Christ;"  ''joins  us 
to  Christ,"  ^' makes  him  our  own,  and  applies  his 
merits  that  by  faith  we  "embrace  Christ;"  thatby 
this  we  touch  him  with  our  mind  and  receive  him 
with  the  hand  of  the  heart;"  Hooker  says,  "  This  is 
the  only  hand  rvhich  putteth  on  Christ  for  Justifica- 


1  Newman's  Lect.  p.  260. 


2  Fathers  of  Eng.  Ch.  ii,  p.  344. 


197 

tion;"  so  precisely  says  Usher.  Beveridge  says  it 
consists  in  a  fiducial  reliance  or  dependence  upon 
Christ  for  the  pardon  of  our  sins,  in  a  particular 
manner;"  it  is  ''to  trust,  depend  and  confidently  rely 
upon  Christ  for  salvation.^  Bishop  Andre  wes  says^ 
By  faith  Abraham  took  hold  of  Christ,  and  that 
faith  was  accounted  to  him  for  righteousness,  and 
to  us  shall  be,  if  we  be,  in  like  sort,  apprehensive  of 
him.  There  is  a  double  apprehension;  one  of  St. 
Paul,  the  other  of  St.  James;  work  for  both  hands  to 
apprehend;  both  love  which  is  by  faith,  and  faith 
which  worketh  by  love,  (Sanctihcation  and  Jastifica- 
tion.)^  In  divers  places.  Bishop  Andrewes  illustrates, 
as  do  the  Homilies  and  Bishop  Hooper,  &c.  &c.,  the 
faith  justifying,  by  the  looking  of  the  Israelites  upon 
the  brazen  serpent;  thus  from  Andrewes:  "Foras- 
much as  it  is  Christ,  his  own  self,  that  resembling  his 
passion  on  the  cross  to  the  Brazen  Serpent,  maketh 
a  correspondence  between  their  beholding  and  our 
believing,  we  cannot  avoid,  but  must  needs  make  that 
an  effect,"  &c.^  Thus  the  good  Bishop  calls  faith  "  the 
eye  of  our  hope  ;''  Leighton,  the  seeing  faculty  of  the 
soul,  which,  as  it  is  that  which  discerns  Christ,  so  it 
alone  appropriates  Christ  or  mahes  him  our  own  f'^  and 
Andrewes  again :  ''As  from  the  Brazen  Serpent  no 
virtue  issued  to  heal,  but  unto  them  that  steadily 
beheld  it,  so  neither  doth  there  from  Christ,  but  upon 
those  that  with  the  eye  of  Faith  have  their  contern- 
plaiion  on  this  object,  who  thereby  draw  life  from 
him."^ 


'  Sermons,  No.  134.  2  Andrewes' Sermons,  p.  3.  3  Andrewes' 

Sermons,  p.  224.  ^  On  1  Peter,  c.  ii.  v.  7,  8.  5  Sermons,  p.  222. 


198 


But  all  this  is  directly  denied  of  faith,  in  Oxford 
divinity.  "  It  would  seem  (says  Mr.  Newman)  that 
Luther's  doctrine,  now  so  popular,  that  Justifying 
faith  is  trust,  conies  first,  justifies  by  itself,  and  then 
gives  birth  to  all  graces,  is  not  tenable;  such  a  faith 
cannot  be,  and  if  it  could,  would  not  justify Dr. 
Pusey  treats  as  Ultra-Protestant,  the  view  "that 
Justifying  Faith  is  nothing  else  than  a  reliance 
(fiducia)  on  the  divine  mercy,  remitting  sins  for 
Christ's  sake."^  And  Mr.  Newman:  Because  the 
Brazen  Serpent  healed  by  being  looked  at,  they  con- 
sider that  Christ's  sacrifice  saves  by  the  7nind's  con- 
templating it;  (the  very  words  of  Andrewes.)  This 
is  what  they  call  casting  themselves  upon  Christ, 
coming  before  him  simply,  and  without  self  trust  and 
being  saved  by  faith.'"  "Christ's  cross  does  not  jus- 
tify us  by  bei7ig  looked  at,  but  by  being  applied ;  not 
by  being  gazed  at  in  faith,  but  by  being  actually  set 
up  within  us.  Men  sit  and  gaze  and  speak  of  the 
great  atonement,  and  think  this  is  appropriating  it. 
Men  say  that  faith  is  an  apprehending  and  apply- 
ing;  faith  cannot  really  apply  it''^ 

Such  is  asserted  by  these  divines  to  be  the  doctrine 
of  our  Homilies  and  standard  divines.  We  shall  see 
more  clearly  how  far  this  is  true  by  and  by. 

6.  That  Faith,  after  it  has  become  regenerate  and 
living,  by  being  Baptized,  so  as  to  be  joined  and  dig- 
nified with  hope  and  love,  only  continues,  or  sustains, 
the  Justification,  or  infusion  of  Righteousness  receiv- 
ed in  Baptism ;  but  this,  not  in  any  proper  sense,  as 


•  Lectures,  p.  293.         ^  Letter  to  Bishop  of  Oxford,  p.  46.  ^  Lectures, 

pp.  202,  203. 


199 


an  instrument  applying  by  itself  the  righteousness 
of  Christ,  but  only  as  joined  with  all  other  Christian 
virtues  and  works. 

Now  it  is  to  this  faith,  after  Baptism,  that  all  the 
instrumentality,  in  Justification,  is  ascribed  by  these 
divines,  so  far  as  any  is  ascribed  to  Faith. — This  is 
said  to  be  the  sole  zWer^rt/ instrument"  of  Justifica- 
tion. ''The  merits  of  Christ  applied  in  Baptism 
by  the  Spirit,  are  said  to  be  received  by  a  living 
faith."  ''Justification  comes  through  the  Sacra- 
ments; is  received  by  Faith  and  lives  in  obedience."^ 
Mr.  N.  says,  On  all  accounts,  from  the  instances, 
statements  and  analogy  of  Scripture  we  may  safely 
conclude  that  there  is  a  certain  extraordinary  and 
singular  sympathy  between  faith  and  the  grant  of 
gospel  privileges,  such  as  to  constitute  it,  m  a  true 
sense,  an  instrument  of  Justification.''''  Now  then  we 
expect  to  find  that  faith  becomes  at  last  really  and 
peculiarly  an  Instrument,  "  in  a  true  sense, and  as 
such,  having  had  no  hand  in  Justification  before 
Baptism^  except  as  Restitution  has,  is  now  honoured 
with  some  instrumentality  after  Baptism,  which 
other  gifts  and  graces  and  works  have  not.  But 
we  are  doomed  to  entire  disappointment. 


>  Pusey's  Letter,  pp.  42,43. 

The  reader  will  naturally  ask  how  faith,  even  after  Baptism,  can  be  ^Uhe  sole 
internal  instrument  of  Justification,^^  when  Justification  must  precede,  in  order 
to  make  it  a  lively  faith?  how  the  merits  of  Christ,  applied  in  Baptism,  can  he 
received  by  a  lively  faith,  when  faith  is  not,  and  cannot,  according  to  this  divi- 
nity, be  lively  till  after,  and  in  consequence  of  ihe  prior  application  of  those 
merits;  how  Justification,  coming  by  the  sacraments,  received  by  faith," 
when  faith  before  Ju-stification,  has  no  hand  wherewith  to  receive,  but  that 
which  is  dead,  and  must,  in  baptismal  justification,  be  itself  raised  from  the 
dead.    These  are  questions  without  answers. 


•200 


First  we  ask  in  what  sense  is  faith  justifying  after 
Baptism?  "Such  (says  Mr.  N.)  is  justifying  faith, 
justifying  not  the  ungodly,  hut  the  just,  whom  God 
has  justified,  when  ungodhj,^'  '^justifying  the  just,  as 
being  the  faith  of  the  Justified"  (271,2).  What  an 
honour  is  here  conferred  on  faith,  that  it  makes 
those  righteous  7vho  are  righteous  already !  This 
language  is  explained  as  far  as  it  can  he  by  the  fol- 
lowing :  Justification  needs  a  perpetual  instrument 
such  as  faith  can  and  Baptism  cannot  be. — Faith 
secures  to  the  soul  continually  those  gifts  w^hich  Bap- 
tism primarily  conveys.— The  Sacraments  are  the 
immediate,  faith  is  the  secondary,  suhordinate,  or  re- 
presentative instrument  of  Justification.  Or  we  may 
say,  varying  our  mode  of  expression,  that  the  Sacra- 
ments are  its  instrumental,  and  Faith  its  sustaining 
cause''  (p.  260).  Thus  we  get  to  the  point. — Faith 
is  only  representatively  justifying  ;  only  as  it  acts  in 
the  name,  by  authority,  and  as  the  instrument,  or 
servant,  of  Baptism,  and  thus  sustaining  what  Bap- 
tism begun ;  so  that  on  the  principle  qui  facit  per 
aliam,  facit  per  se,  it  is  only  baptism  justifying  still. 

Now  here  arises  a  very  grave  question  for  this  sys- 
tem to  answer.  According  to  Dr.  Pusey  and  this 
"school,  in  full  anrreement  w4th  the  Church  of  Rome 
on  this  head,  what  they  call  Sin  after  Baptism,  or 
Mortal  Sin,  necessarily  destroys  the  virtue  of  Bap- 
tism, removes  its  Justification,  makes  it  unjustifica- 
tion.  Faith  then  has  lost  its  power  to  sustain  what 
Baptism  gave,  can  no  more  act  as  its  representative, 
because  it  is  now  dead  again,  by  sin,  and  needs  again 
to  be  raised,  regenerated  and  justified  before  it  can 
be  in  a  condition  to  be  an  instrument  in  any  way  of 


201 


Justiticatioii.  Such  Dr.  Pusej  supposes  may  have 
been  the  case  of  Simon  Magus.  In  his  zeal  to  sup- 
port the  opus  operatum  of  Baptism,  in  every  case  in 
which  the  recipient  may  not  be  supposed  to  have 
been  an  infidel  or  a  hypocrite,  he  supposes  that  Simon, 
may  have  been  indeed  regenerated  and  justified  in 
his  Baptism,  though  so  soon  afterwards,  he  was  de- 
clared by  St.  Peter  to  be  "in  the  gall  of  bitterness 
and  in  the  bonds  of  iniquity."  But  only  his  faith 
did  not  sustain  his  Justification;  it  proved  an  un- 
faithful  representative^  is  the  explanation/ 

Now  the  question  is,  how,  in  the  case  of  Sin  after 
Baptism,  which  is  no  other  than  the  universal  case 
of  those  who  have  been  baptized  in  infancy,  how  is 
Justification  to  he  renewed? 

The  answer  must  be,  not  hj  faith,  for  that,  by  the 
supposition,  is  now  dead  again,  and  incapable  of  acting 
as  the  Representative  of  Baptism.  And  Baptism  can- 
not be  repeated.  So  that  faith  has  no  hope.  Some 
other  way  must  be  ascertained,  if  possible,  for  the  re- 
newal of  Justification. 

Mr.  Newman  meets  the  difficulty  by  making  both 
sacraments  instruments  of  Justification.  Thus  sin 
after  Baptism  is  remitted  in  the  Eucharist.  But 
here  is  the  difficulty  in  such  a  scheme :  How  is  the 
poor  sinner  to  come  to  the  Eucharist?  By  Faith,  of 
course.  But,  alas,  his  faith  is  now  dead,  and  there 
is  no  more  Baptism  to  revive  it — so  that  if  he  come 
to  the  Lord's  Supper,  and  does  truly  and  spiritually 
receive  the  body  and  blood  of  Christ  to  his  soul's 
health — to  his  justification,  it  must  be  with  a  dead 


'  Pusey'a  Views  of  Holy  Baptism,  p.  1&5, 

26 


202 


faith,  such  as,  according  to  Mr  N.,  is  not  even  neces- 
sarily a  moral  virtue,  has  no  moral  excellence,  any 
more  than  the  devil's  faith.  From  this  result  there 
is  no  escape/  But  possibly  Mr.  N.  does  not  desire 
an  escape;  for  why  is  a  dead  faith  any  the  less  meet 
preparation  for  the  Lord's  Supper,  than  for  Baptism, 
when  in  both  we  receive  the  body  and  blood  of 
Christ,  hy  putting  on  Christ,  in  one,  and  feeding  on 
him,  in  the  other  ?  It  is  sufficiently  revolting  as  to 
either.  But  what  more  revolting  than  'Ho  adminis- 
ter the  Lord^s  Supper  to  infants,  or  to  the  dying  and 
apparently  insensiUeV^  And  yet,  say  Oxford  Tracts, 
neither  practice  is  rvithout  the  sanction  of  primitive 
usage'^^ — of  course,  then,  not  without  the  sanction  of 
Oxford  Divinity,  for  the  primitive  usage  is  its  law. 
Then  if  these  gentlemen  are  prepared  to  give  the 
Eucharist  to  Infants  and  the  insensible,  it  is  proba- 
bly, no  objection  in  Mr.  Newman's  view,  to  a  system, 
that  it  requires,  in  certain  cases,  that  the  same  be 
administered  to  a  dead  faith.  Mr.  Palmer,  however, 
though  of  this  school,  seems  not  to  be  quite  ready  for 
such  an  extreme,  and  yet  cannot  very  positively  go 
against  it.  On  the  question,  whether  those  who 
have  not  a  living  faith  can  receive  the  Eucharist  to 
their  soul's  health,  he  cautiously  remarks  that,  since 
we  read  in  the  Scriptures,  he  that  eateth  my  flesh, 
6fC.,  hath  everlasting  life,  therefore  the  Church  re- 
gards it  as  the  more  pious  and  probable  opinion  that 
those  who  are  totally  devoid  of  true  and  lively  faith, 
do  not  partake  of  the  holy  flesh,  of  Christ  in  the  Eu- 


'For  as  the  benefit  is  great,  if  with  a  true  penitent  heart,  and  lively  faith,  we 
receive  that  holy  sacrament,  so  is  the  danger  great  if  we  receive  the  same  un- 
worthily."—  Communion  Office.  2  Views  of  Holy  Baptism,  p.  5, 


203 


charist,  God  withdrawing  from  them  so  divine  a 
gift."^  This,  indeed,  is  a  most  singularly  moderate 
opinion.  But  it  cuts  off  Mr.  Newman's  mode  of 
escape  from  the  difficulty  in  which  Sin  after  Bap- 
tism" involves  the  system.  It  forbids  the  use  of  the 
Eucharist  as  a  Justifying  ordinance,  in  the  case  of 
one  whose  faith  by  such  sin  has  relapsed  into  death. 

Now,  the  necessity  of  this,  Dr.  Pusey  understands ; 
so  that  he  does  not  pretend  that  the  Eucharist  can 
justify  in  such  a  case,  nor  does  he  at  all  shrink  from 
the  consequence ;  but,  more  boldly  carrying  out  the 
system  to  its  results,  than  Mr.  Newman  seems  ready 
for,  he  freely,  and  in  several  places  acknowledges,  as 
well  in  the  Tracts,  as  in  his  Letter  to  the  Bishop  of 
Oxford,  that  'Hhere  are  but  two  periods  of  absolute 
cleansing — Baptism,  and  the  Day  of  Judgment — and 
as  the  Church  ''has  no  second  Baptism  to  give  " — so 
in  the  case  of  the  sinner  supposed,  ''she  cannot  pro- 
nounce him  altogether  free  from  his  past  sins — she 
therefore  teaches  him  continually  to  repent,  that  so 
his  sins  may  be  blotted  out,  though  she  has  no  com- 
mission to  tell  him  absolutely  that  they  are."^ 

Thus  Dr.  Pusey  has  no  way  of  justification  in 
this  life  for  Sin  after  Baptism;  though  Mr.  New- 
man thinks  he  has,  in  the  Eucharist — unless,  howr 
ever,  we  are  mistaken  in  his  use  of  words,  when  he 
calls  the  Eucharist  a  justifying  sacrament.  He 
may  mean,  with  the  Romanist,  only  that  it  takes 
away  venial  sins — not  mortal. 

Now  let  us  see  how  Romanism  surmounts  the 


1  Palmer's  Treatise  on  the  Church,  vol.  1,  p.  529. 
Tract  No.  79,  pp.  7  &  32.    No.  80,  p.  46. 


^  Letter  p.  62. 


204 


difficulty.  According  to  the  system  of  Rome  and 
that  of  Oxford,  sin  after  Baptism  destroys  Justifi- 
cation, and  makes  a  living  faith  to  be  dead.  The 
doctrine  of  Rome  agrees  with  Dr.  Pusey  in  denying 
that  Justification  from  such  sin  can  bo  obtained  in  the 
Eucharist,  on  the  ground  that  he  who  is  spiritually 
dead  ought  not  to  receive  that  spiritual  food  which 
is  only  for  the  living,  and  cannot  be  united  to  Christ.^ 
Still,  however,  the  Eucharist  is  called  in  Romish 
language  a  Justifying  Sacrament,  as  is  also  Extreme 
Unction,  and  as  sprinkling  with  holy  water,  and  the 
Episcopal  Benediction,  are  called  in  Romish  Divinity 
Justifying  ordinances ;  but  their  efficacy  is  only  for 
the  remission  of  venial  sins,  such  as  the  Church  of 
Rome  says    have  not  properly  the  nature  of  stnJ^ 

How  then  does  the  Church  of  Rome  provide  for 
sin  after  Baptism?  She  invents  a  Sacrament  for 
its  remission — viz. :  that  of  Penance^  which  consists 
of  contrition,  confession  and  satisfaction,  with  the 
absolution  of  the  Priest.  Without  this,  it  is  abso- 
lutely unpardonable.  The  tendency  of  the  Oxford 
system  to  the  same  contrivance  will  be  more  mani- 
fest by  and  by. 

Now  let  us  return,  and  since  we  have  seen  that 
Faith  is  considered  as  being  justifying  after  Baptism 
as  ''the  sole  internal  instrument  of  Justification,"  and 
as  doing  this  however  only  as  the  secondary,  subor- 
dinate, representative  instrument  of  Baptism,  let  us 


'  Quicunque  habet  conscientiam  mortalis  peccati,  habet  in  se  impedimentum 
percipiendi  effectum  hujus  sacramenti,  turn  quia  non  vivit  spiritualiter  el  ita 
non  debet  spirituale  nutrimentum  suscipere,  quod  non  est  nisi  viventis;  turn 
quia  non  potest  uniri  Christo  dum  est  in  affectu  peccandi  mortaliter. — Unde  in 
illo  qui  ipsum  percipit  in  conscientia  peccati  mortalis,  non  operatur  remissionem 
pecctti.    Aquinas  P.  1,  2.  Q,  78.  A  3.       2  fb.  Q.  71.  A.  4  &  Q.  87,  A.  3. 


^205 


enquire  how  far  it  is  really  an  instrument  in  any 
sense  other  than  that  in  which  all  other  graces  are 
instruments.  Mr.  Newman  says  "  It  is  a  sxjmbol 
of  the  nature  and  mode  of  our  Justification,  or  of  its 
history;  and  hence  is  said  by  Protestant  divines 
to  justify  only  that  our  minds  may  be  affected  with 
a  due  sense  of  their  own  inability  to  do  any  good 
thing  of  themselves"  (278).  The  Representative 
is  now  exhibited  as  a  symbol  of  Baptism,  sustain- 
ing Justification  syinbolically ;  that  is,  an  ''^inward, 
and  spiritual  grace''  is  the  symbol  of  "  an  outward, 
and  visible  sign."  This  is  at  least  new.  "  This  sym- 
bol, faith,  (Mr.  N.  continues,)  is  said  to  justify 
(the  italics  are  his),  not  that  it  really  justifies 
more  than  other  graces;  but  it  has  this  peculiar- 
ity, that  it  signifies  in  its  very  nature,  that  nothing 
of  ours  justifies  us ;  or  it  typifies  the  freeness  of  our 
Justification.  Faith  heralds  forth  divine  grace,  and  its 
name  is  a  sort  of  representative  of  it,  as  opposed  to 
works.  Hence  it  may  well  be  honoured  above  the 
other  graces,  and  placed  nearer  Christ  than  the 
rest,  as  if  it  were  distinct  from  them,  and  before 
them,  and  above  them,  though  it  be  not.  It  is  suita- 
bly said  to  justify  us,  because  it  says  itself  that  it 
does  not — so  to  speak,  as  a  sort  of  reward  to  it."  (281) 
Thus  we  are  gravely  told  that  faith  is  rewarded  for 
something,  by  being  said  to  justify,  when  it  does 
not — as  if  it  were  some  little  child  to  be  amused 
with  a  name  and  honoured  by  a  bauble,  and  deceiv- 
ed by  a  fraud.  It  is  but  said,  (Mr.  N.  says  again) 
to  be  the  sole  justifier,  and  that  with  a  view  to  incul- 
cate another  doctrine,  not  said,  viz.:  that  all  is 
of  grace"  (282).  "It  is  plain  that  'faith  only' 
does  not  apprehend,  apply,  or  appropriate  Christ's 


206 


merits;  but  it  only  preaches  them''  (283).  The 
symbol  is  now  a  Preacher.  Because  our  Homily  of 
Salvation  says  The  very  true  meaning  of  this  pro- 
position or  saijing,  we  be  justified  by  faith  only,  &c. 
Mr.  N.  concludes  from  thence  that  "Justification  by 
faith  only  is  here  said  to  be  a  saying" — and  makes 
this  illustrative  remark,  "Consider  how  astonished 
and  pained  we  should  be  were  the  doctrine  of  the 
atonement,  or  Christ's  divinity  said  to  be  a  proposi- 
tion or  saying''  (285).    Alas  !  Alas! 

We  have  now  reached  this  point  that  the  faith 
which  is  "the  sole  internal 'm^ixwrneiiV  of  Justifica- 
tion, the  Representative,  and  Symbol,  and  Preacher 
of  Justification,  does  not  really  justify  any  more  than 
other  graces;  but  is  only  said  to  do  so.  Justification 
by  Faith  is  only  "a  saying.''^  Now  we  are  prepared 
for  further  light.  Mr.  N.  asks,  "  why  faith  should 
cease  to  be  justifying  faith,  if  called  love  or  obedience  V 
(300.)  "  It  justifies  as  including  all  other  graces  and 
rvorksinand  under  it,""  (346.)  "Works  viewed  as 
one  with  faith,  are  in  one  sense  instruments  too,  as 
being  connatural  with  faith  and  indivisible  from  it, 
organs  through  which  it  acts  and  which  it  hallows — 
instruments  with  faith  of  the  continuance  of  Justifi- 
cation" (349).  Thus,  "Justification  by  obedience,''^ 
is  the  "  distinguishing  tenef  of  this  divinity.  Mr. 
N.  speaks  therefore  of  "  love  being  imputed  for  righte- 
ousness''' 

We  are  now  ready  to  interpret  the  select  de- 
finition furnished  by  Dr.  Pusey  in  his  Letter,  (App. 
p.  20,)  but  taken  from  Mr.  Newman,  that  "we  are 
justified  by  obedience  in  the  shape  of  faith  that  is, 
really  by  obedience,  apparently  by  faith;  faith,  the 
saying  ;  obedience,  the  doing ;  faith,  the  symbol;  obe- 


207 


dience,  the  thing.  And  thus  also  of  that  other  ac- 
count, that  "  Justification  is  received  by  faith — lives 
in  obedience;"  in  which  the  mvtoV^m^  instrumen- 
tality of  faith  is  taken  away  from  the  symbol,  and 
ascribed  to  the  substance.  The  whole  is  summed 
up  by  Dr.  Pusey  in  these  words — "Justification  by 
faith,  is  Justification  by  God's  free  grace  in  the  Gos- 
pel, as  opposed  to  every  thing  out  of  the  Gospel;"^ 
not  by  faith  as  distinguished  from  works,  but  as  op- 
posed to  whatever  is  "out  of  the  Gospel." 

Such  honour  then  has  faith  in  Oxford  Divinity. 
That  grace  which  stands  out  so  conspicuously  in  the 
language  of  the  Saviour  and  of  his  Apostles,  and 
is  connected  with  everything  in  salvation,  so  that  we 
"live  by  faith,"  "stand  by  faith,"  "walk  by  faith," 
are  "kept  by  the  power  of  God,  through  faith,  unto 
salvation;"  condemned  if  we  have  it  not;  not  con- 
demned if  we  have  it;  faith,  that  is  spoken  of  in  the 
Scriptures  a  hundred  times,  where  Baptism  is  once, 
which  fills  whole  series  of  discourses  of  our  great 
divines,  when  Baptism  is  not  mentioned ;  that  very 
distinguished  grace,  acknowledged  by  Mr.  N,  to  be 
represented  in  the  Scripture  as  having  "a  certain  ex- 
traordinary and  singular  sympathy  rvith  the  grant  of 
gospel  privileges  is  first  degraded  to  a  dead,  inopera- 
tive thing,  before  Baptism,  such  as  even  devils  have; 
into  a  mere  symbol  of  Baptism,  after  Baptism;  a  jus- 
tifying instrument,  only  in  being  said  to  be  what  it 
is  not — obedience  being  the  real  and  only  internal 
instrument.  We  call  Bishop  Beveridge  to  deliver 
his  testimony  against  such  doctrine. 


'  Views  of  Holy  Baptism,  p.  23. 


208 


"  Although  Faith  be  always  accompanied  with  obedience  and  good 
works,  so  as  that  it  can  never  be  without  them,  yet  in  the  matter  of 
our  Justification,  it  is  always  opposed  to  them  by  *S7.  Paul.  And 
indeed  to  look  to  be  justified  by  such  a  faith,  which  is  the  same  with 
obedience,  or  which  is  all  one,  to  bejustifi:ed  by  our  obedience,  is  to 
take  all  our  hopes  and  expectations  from  Christ,  and  to  place  them 
upon  ourselves — and  therefore  this  notion  of  Faith  overthrows  the 
very  basis  and  foundation  of  the  Christian  Religion." 

The  Bishop  ascribes  the  doctrine  we  have  exhibit- 
ed to  Socinians,  who  hold  he  says,  that 

"  Justifying  or  Saving  Faith  is  nothing  else  but  obedience  sincerely 
performed  to  the  Law  of  God  ;  so  that  Good  Works  are  not  the 
Fruit  of  Faith,  but  constitute  the  very  form  and  essence  of  it." 
"  This  contradicts  the  whole  tenor  of  the  Gospel  and  the  grand  de- 
sign of  Christ's  coming  into  the  world,  and  of  all  that  he  hath  done 
or  suffered  for  us."^ 

Socinians  and  Romanists  are  not  wide  apart  on  the 
subject  of  Justification  and  Faith.  A  veil  of  mystical 
words,  and  the  opus  operatum  of  Sacraments,  is  nearly 
all  that  separates  them.  It  is  quite  refreshing  to  dip 
into  such  doctrine  as  that  of  Beveridge,  after  all  the 
shadows,  and  symbols,  and  vain  show  of  faith,  in 
which  we  have  been  so  lonof  walkinor.  But  it  is  with 
far  other  feelings  that  we  recur  to  what  we  cannot 
but  consider  the  improperly  reserved  language  of  Dr. 
Pusey,  quoted  from  Mr.  Newman,  and  adopted  as 
his  own,  viz : 

"The  instrumental  power  of  Faith  cannot  interfere  with  the  in- 
strumental power  of  Baptism  ;  because  Faith  is  the  so/e  justifier,  not 
in  contrast  to  all  means  and  agencies  whatever,  (for  it  is  not  surely 
in  contrast  to  our  Lord's  merits,  or  God's  mercy,)  but  to  all  other 
graces.  When  then.  Faith  is  called  the  sole  instrument.,  this  means 
the  sole  internal  instrument,  not  the  sole  instrument  of  any  kind. 


•Beveridge's  Sermons,  No.  134^ 


2  Pusey's  Letters,  43,  44. 


209 


From  the  ground  we  have  gone  over,  all  this  is 
evidently  mere  words.  Faith  hefcyix  Baptism  is,  in 
this  divinity,  no  instrument  at  all,  because  dead.  In 
Baptism,  it  is  no  instrument  at  all,  because  not  made 
alive  till  Baptism  is  completed.  After  Baptism,  it  is 
an  instrument  of  Justification,  only  as  it  sustains 
what  Baptism  has  already  effected,  and  which,  when 
lost,  it  cannot  renew.  And  even  in  that  instrumen- 
tality, it  is  not  a  sole  instrument,  but  is  instrumental 
only  as  all  other  graces  are  also ;  and  it  is  only  said 
to  be  the  sole  instrument,  as  a  reward  for  something 
peculiar  to  itself,  which  we  do  not  pretend  to  under- 
stand. Such  is  the  whole  internal  and  sole  instru- 
mentality of  that  Faith  which  St.  Paul  speaks  of 
when  he  says:  ''Being  Justified  by  faith  we  have 
peace  with  God,  through  our  Lord  .Jesus  Christ." 


27 


CHAPTER  VII. 


THE  DOCTRINE  OF  OXFORD  DIVINITY,  AS  TO  THE  DOCTRINE  AND  EFFI- 
CACY OF  THE  SACRAMENTS,  ESPECIALLY  OF  BAPTISM,  COMPARED 
WITH  THAT  OF  THE  ROMISH  CHURCH. 

Tendency  of  all  such  principles,  as  that  of  Justification  in  Oxford  Divinity,  to 
magnify  external  ceremonies,  and  ultimately  to  make  all  religion  consist  in 
them — This  tendency  prominent  in  regard  to  the  Sacraments — Baptismal 
Justification  similarly  held  by  the  Romish  Church  and  the  divines  of  Oxford — 
The  op^is  operatiim  of  Baptism  held  alike  by  both — Effect  of  this,  the  same 
in  both,  in  keeping  out  of  view  the  truth,  that  the  Sacraments  are  signs,  and 
identifying  the  visible  sign  with  the  invisible  grace — The  tendency  to  tran- 
substanliation,  in  Oxford  Divinity,  explained  from  the  same  cause. — The 
false  and  injurious  comparison  between  the  spiritual  nature  of  the  Sacraments 
of  the  Old  and  New  Testaments,  resulting  alike  from  Romish  and  Oxford 
Divinity — Extract  from  Jeremy  Taylor — Limbus  Patrum — Bishop  Burnet  on 
Sacramental  Justification. 

In  proceeding  further  to  show  that  the  fundamental 
doctrine  of  Oxford  Divinity,  as  to  a  righteousness  in- 
herent for  Justification,  is  so  identical  with  that  of 
Rome,  in  ramification,  as  well  as  root,  that  it  affects 
the  same  subordinate  doctrines,  in  precisely  fhe  same 
way,  and  with  reference  to  the  same  ends,  we  pro- 
ceed from  the  doctrine  of  Faith,  to  that  of  the  Sacra- 
ments, and  especially  of  Baptism. 

We  have  found  that  Justifying  Faith,  like  Justi- 
fying Righteousness  in  this  system,  is  a  matter  of 
works  altogether;  that  the  latter  is  Sanctification, 
and  the  former  is  justifying  only  as  it  works  by  love 
and  other  graces;  that  is,  as  it  works  by  Sanctifica- 
tion. Thus  Justification  by  faith,  is  Justification  by 
all  the  Christian's  privileges  and  gifts — since  they  are 
all  a  part  of  the  faith  bestowed  on  one  who  embraces 


212 


the  mercies  of  God,  in  Christ,  and  through  the  Sa- 
craments is  made  a  partaker  of  His  life.  It  is  Justi- 
fication by  God's  free  grace  in  the  Gospel,  as  opposed 
to  every  thing  out  of  the  Gospel''^  The  amount  then 
is,  that  Justification  by  faith,  through  God's  free 
grace,  means  nothing  more  nor  less  than  Justification 
hy  Christianity. 

Now  the  moment  a  system  of  religion  gets  thus  to 
rest  in  works  for  Justification  before  God,  its  strong 
tendency,  unless  fortuitously  directed  otherwise,  is 
to  run  into  reliance  on  external  works,  because  they 
are  tangible,  appreciable;  they  can  be  counted  and 
distinctly  grasped  for  refuge,  while  internal  holiness 
is  just  the  reverse.  Hence,  while  all  corrupt  sys- 
tems of  Christianity,  have  talked  much  of  inherent 
righteousness,  inward  holiness,  &c.,  their  real  work- 
ing, in  the  long  run,  has  been  most  grossly  to  neglect 
the  inward  work  of  religion,  and  make  the  whole 
business  of  salvation  consist  in  external  observances; 
anA  the  more  they  have  resulted  in  this,  the  more 
has  fli;^outward  show  of  devotion  increased,  and  the 
power  sm-dNefficacy  of  external  symbols  and  gestures 
been  magnifiM,  All  tli^j^  is  natural.  We  could 
make  the  whole  aspect  of  our  congregations  at  once 
as  devout  and  prostrate  in  ^the  dust,  as  that  of  a 
Romish  Monastery,  or  a  Mohammedan  Mosque,  or  a 
Hindoo  Temple,  were  we  only  to  make  them  tho- 
roughly to  believe,  as  Papists,  and  Mohammedans, 
and  Hindoos,  that  by  our  works  we  are  to  make  our- 
selves acceptable.  But  what,  in  such  an  experi- 
ment, we  should  gain,  in  outward  exhibitions  of  de- 


1  Vxxsefs  Views  of  Baptism,  p.  22. 


213 


votion,  we  should  lose  in  that  inward  holiness,  with- 
out w^hich  no  man  shall  see  the  Lord.  We  are  the 
circumcision (we  are  the  true  Christians)  says  St. 
Paul,  which  worship  God  in  the  Spirit,  and  rejoice 
in  Christ  Jesus,  and  put  no  confidence  in  the  fleshy 

The  first  indication  of  the  tendency  referred  to, 
after  adopting  a  righteousness  of  works,  is  to  the  un- 
due magnifying  of  the  office  and  efficacy  of  the  Sa- 
craments. 

How  this  appears  in  Oxford  Divinity,  in  compari- 
son with  its  phases  in  that  of  Rome,  we  now  pro- 
ceed to  show. 

It  is  notoriously  the  doctrine  of  the  Trent  Decrees, 
that  Baptism  is  the  only  instrumental  cause^''  of  Jus- 
tification ;  so  absolutely  necessary  thereto,  that  with- 
out it  Justification  is  obtained  by  none.^  That  this  is 
precisely  the  doctrine,  and  a  great  distinguishing 
doctrine  of  the  Oxford  School,  there  can  be  no 
need,  after  all  our  previous  showing,  of  bringing  any 
passages  to  prove.  Justification  in  Baptism,  and 
only  there,  is  the  sole  subject  of  a  whole  volume 
of  Oxford  Tracts,  called  Scriptural  Vieivs  of  Holy 
Baptism.''  The  only  exception  to  this  absolute  ne- 
cessity which  is  granted  to  have  occurred  in  ancient 
times,  is  considered  as  not  applicable  in  our  days.^ 


'  Instrumentalis  causa — Sacramentum  Baptismi  sine  quo,  nulli  unquau  justi- 
ficatio  coDtingit. — Concil.  Trident.  Sess.  vi, 

2  "Faith  considered  as  an  instrument  is  always  secondary  to  the  sacraments. 
The  most  extreme  case  in  which  it  seems  to  supersede  them,  is  xox  louxn  in 
OCR  owx,  but  in  the  ancient  Church;  in  which  the  faith  of  persons  dying  in 
the  state  of  catechumens  was  held  to  avail  to  their  reception,  in  death,  into  that 
kingdom  of  which  Baptism  is  the  ordinary  gate." 

In  the  absolute  necessity  of  Baptism  to  salvation,  Mr.  N.  seems  to  exceed 
some  Romanists.    The  latter  deny  not  salvation  to  such  as  have  desired  bap- 


214 


It  is  equally  notorious  that,  in  the  view  of  the 
Church  of  Rome,  Baptismal  Justification  consists  in 
an  infusion  of  righteousness  by  which  all  original 
sin  in  Infants,  and  all  actual  sin,  as  well  as  original 
in  adults,  is  entirely  remitted.  The  remission  of 
Original  Sin,  which  is  the  corruption  of  our  nature, 
is  held  to  be,  not  in  the  sense  of  not  being  imputed, 
but  in  that  of  being  taken  away  by  extinction. 

There  is  no  necessity  of  occupying  space  with  the 
shewing  that  this  is  also  precise  Oxfordism.  The 
advocates  of  this  system  do  not  pretend  to  any  dis- 

tism,  but  died  without  it ;  but  in  strange  inconsistency  with  their  doctrine  con- 
cerning the  deadness  of  faith,  and  the  necessary  absence  of  love  in  all  faith, 
which  precedes  Baptism,  allow  that  such  persons  may  have  internal  Sanctifica- 
tion,  and  such  a  desire  of  Baptism  as  proceeds  from  faith  tvorking  by  love,  and 
therefore  living  and  justifying.  First,  Aquinas  says  that  Baptism  is  necessary, 
simply  and  absolutely  as  food  is  to  life;  non,  sine  quo  non  habetur  finis  ita  con- 
venienter,  sicut  equus  necessarius  est  ad  iter;  sed  simpliciter  sicut  cibus  est 
necessarius  vitse  humana^.  He  then  cites  Augustine  as  saying  that  invisible 
Sanctification  might  be  possessed,  and  might  be  availing  without  the  visible  sa- 
crament: but  that  the  visible  Sanctification  by  the  visible  sacrament,  without 
the  invisible  Sanctification,  though  it  might  be  possessed,  could  not  profit.  In- 
visibilem  Sanctificationem  quibusdam  aflfuisse  et  profuisse,  sine  visibilibus  sa- 
cramentis;  visibilem  vero  Sanctificationem,  quse  fit  sacramento  visibili,  sine  in- 
visibili  pos  e  adesse,  sed  non  posse  prodesse.  Hence  St.  Thomas  concludes 
that  a  person  may  obtain  Salvation  by  invisible  Sanctification,  who  by  a  desire 
of  Baptism  has  received  it  in  wish,  though  not  in  form,  which  wish  or  desire 
proceeds  from  faith  working  by  love,  through  which  God,  "who  is  not  tied  to 
visible  sacraments,"  internally  sanctifies  the  interior  of  the  man.  Videtur  sine 
sacramento  baptismi  aliquis  possit  salutem  consequi  per  invisibilem  sanctifica- 
tionem— minime  salvari  possunt  qui  nec  re,  nec  voto  sacramentum  susceperint; 
qui  vero  salutem  voto  sacram.  Baptismi  susceperint,  eti  non  re,  salvari  possunt. 
Cum  aliquis  baptizari  desiderat,  sed  aliquo  casu  prsevenitur  morte — talis  sine 
baptismo  actuali  salutem  consequi  potest,  propter  desiderium  baptismi  quod 
procedit  ex  fide  per  dilectionem  operante;  per  quam"  Deus  interius  bominis 
sanctificat,  cujus  potentia  sacramentis  visibilibus  non  allegatur.  But  such  a 
person  must  go  to  Purgatory,  however.  Talis  decedens  non  statim  pervenit 
ad  vitam  eternam,  sed  patietur  paenam  pro  peccatis  prjeteritis  ;  ipse  tamen  salvus 
erit,  Bed  quasi  igne. — P.  1.  2. Q.  65.  A.  4.  2. 


215 


tinction  on  this  point  between  their  views  and  Ro- 
manism. 

The  reader  is  now  requested  to  observe  that  what 
is  called  the  opus  oferatum,  in  the  Romish  doctrine 
of  the  Sacraments,  is  found  in  all  its  offensive  sub- 
stance in  Oxford  divinity.  This  we  proceed  to 
show. 

In  the  scholastic  lanf^uaore  of  Romanism,  there  are 
two  technical  expressions  with  regard  to  the  efficacy 
of  the  Sacraments,  viz :  opus  operans  and  opus  operas 
turn.  The  expression  that  the  Sacraments  confer 
grace  ex  opere  operante,  means  that  their  efficacy  re- 
quires in  the  recipient,  a  preparatory  state  of  inward 
piety;  that  is  precisely  what  we  are  accustomed  to 
understand  by  the  Repentance  and  Faith  required 
for  the  Baptism  of  Adults.  Such  was  the  efficacy  of 
the  Sacraments  of  the  Jewish  Church,  according  to 
the  Church  of  Rome ;  Abraham  having  been  justi- 
fied by  faith,  while  in  uncircu incision.  But  the  effi- 
cacy of  the  Sacraments  of  the  Christian  Church,  is 
exalted  above  that  of  those  which  went  before,  in 
this,  viz.  that  they  confer  grace,  ex  ojpere  operato;  by 
which  is  meant  that  no  previous  preparation  of  in- 
ternal piety,  such  as  that  of  a  living  faith,  is  required 
in  the  recipient ;  so  that,  says  Chemnitz,  the  School- 
men made  a  general  rule  that  in  order  to  receive  the 
grace  of  the  Sacraments,  unto  Salvation,  it  is  not 
necessary  that  you  have  faith,  that  is  to  say,  a  good 
internal  affection  of  heart,  (a  living  faith);  but  it  is 
sufficient  that  you  place  no  obstacle  in  the  way.  The 
opus  operatum  then  is  simply  the  efficacy  of  the  Sa- 
craments, without  respect  to  the  state  of  the  recipient, 
except  that  he  do  not  shut  up  his  soul  against  them. 


216 


He  may  be  entirely  negative  as  to  all  spiritual  affec- 
tion, and  still  the  efficacy  will  remain.  This  does 
not  mean  that  in  the  Adult  recipient  of  Baptism  no 
faith  is  required,  but  that  it  need  not  be  a  living 
faith ;  it  may  be  dead,  inoperative,  and  yet  be  no 
hindrance  to  the  Sacramental  efficacy.'  Neither  is 
it  contended  in  the  Church  of  Rome,  that  the  efficacy 
is  not  by  the  sole  pov^er  of  God,  making  the  Sacra- 
ments thus  mighty,  and  that  for  Christ's  sake,  and  in 
application  of  his  merits.  ^ 


1  The  whole  preparation  required  in  the  Church  of  Rome  for  adult  Baptism 
is  thus  expressed  in  the  catechism  of  the  Council  of  Trent — "  If  they  have 
been  born  of  infidel  parents,"  (the  children  of  Christians  being  supposed  to 
have  been  baptized  in  infancy)  "  the  Christian  faith  is  to  be  proposed" — "  If 
converted  to  the  Lord,"  (that  is  if  they  renounce  infidelity)  they  are  to  be 
admonished  not  to  defer  Baptism  beyond  the  time  appointed  by  the  church ;  and 
they  are  to  be  taught  that  in  their  regard  perfect  conversion  (that  is  the  spirit- 
ual work)  consists  in  regeneration  by  Baptism.""  "  The  Church  must  take  par- 
ticular care,  that  none  approach  this  sacrament  whose  hearts  are  vitiated  by 
hypocrysy  and  dissimulation^^  (the  obex  or  impediment  of  the  schoolmen). — 
"  The  necessary  dispositions  for  Baptism  are,  that  in  the  first  place,  they  must 
desire  and  purpose  to  receive  it\  for  as  in  Baptism  we  die  to  sin  and  engage  to 
lead  a  new  life,  it  is  fit  to  be  administered  to  those  only  who  receive  it  of  their 
own  free  will  and  accord,  and  is  to  be  forced  on  none."  Faith  for  the  same 
reason  is  also  necessary — (not  a  living  faith,  for  that  comes  by  Baptism). 
"  Another  necessary  condition  is  compnnctioii  for  past  sins,  and  a  fixed  deter- 
mination to  refrain  from  their  future  commission."  The  reason  of  this  is  that 
when  many  on  the  day  of  Pentecost  were  "  compunct  iji  heart,^'  Peter  said  to 
them  "  do  penance  and  be  baptized."  Thus  we  have  a  desire  to  be  baptized,  a 
dead  faith  and  compunction  (7iot  contrition)  for  sins,  composing  all  the  requi- 
sites for  Baptism.  Devils  have  compunction  as  well  as  faith — for  they  "  be- 
lieve and  tremble."  For  the  Sacrament  of  Penance,  which  is  for  the  remission 
of"  sin  after  Baptism"  contrition,  confession  and  satisfaction  **  are  required — 
for  Baptism  only  compunction.''^ — See  Catechism  of  Council  of  Trent,  p.  164, 
167,  and  p.  241. 

Aquinas  defining  the  faith  required  for  Baptism  says  that  though  a  person 
should  not  have  a  right  faith  as  to  other  articles,  he  may  have  it  as  to  Baptism  ; 
and  thus  he  may  have  the  intention  to  receive  Baptism.  But  even  though 
he  should  not  think  correctly  concerning  this  sacrament,  a  general  intention  is 


217 


This  opus  operatum  has  ever  been  considered, 
among  Protestants,  a  dark  and  deadly  plague-spot  of 
Popery.  But  is  not  this  precisely  the  doctrine  of 
Oxford  Divinity  as  to  the  efficacy  of  Baptism?  The 
reader  need  but  refer  to  what  has  been  shewn, 
under  the  head  of  Faith,  to  perceive,  without  a 
doubt,  that  Baptism  is  considered,  in  that  scheme, 
as  efficacious  to  Justification  in  the  Adult  recipient, 
without  any  faith  except  such  as  devils  may  have, 
as  well  as  we.  He  is  made  righteous  by  Baptism, 
from  being,  up  to  the  time  of  Baptism,  u7irtghteous. 
A  living  faith,  working  by  love,  is  begotten  in  Bap- 
tism, and  is  expressly  said,  not  to  precede,  but  to  fol- 
low it.    Further  evidence  cannot  be  needed  than 


sufficient  for  its  reception;  because  though  he  know  nothing  correctly  about  it, 
he  intends  to  receive  it  as  Christ  appointed,  and  the  Church  has  handed  it 
down.  Et:am  non  habens  rectam  fidem  circa  alios  articulos,  potest  habere  rec- 
tam  fidem  circa  sacramentum  bap.  et  ita  non  impeditur  quin  possit  habere 
intentionem  suscipiendi  sacramentum  bap.  Sitamen  etiam  circa  hoc  sacra- 
mentum non  recte  sentiat,  sufficit  ad  perceptionem  sacramenti  generalis  inten- 
tio,  quia  intendit  suscipere  baptismum,  sicut  Christus  instituit  et  Ecclesia  tra- 
dit.— P.  I,  2,  Q.  67,  Q.  8. 

Thus  the  most  general  assent,  a  mere  profession  of  faith,  in  whatever  may 
b«  asserted  by  the  Church,  without  knowing  any  thing  about  it,  is  the  whole 
requirement  for  Baptism.  Aquinas  teaches  no  more  concerning  the  repent- 
ance required.  He  says  Penitentia  ante  baptismum  est  actus  virtutis  dispo- 
nens  ad  sacramentum  baptismi ;  it  is  an  act  of  virtue  disposing  one  to  Baptism. 
This  is  precisely  what  he  and  Mr.  Newman  say  of  the  dead  faith  before  Bap- 
tism. Of  course,  if  faith  is  dead,  repentance  must  be  also.  Hence  Romanists 
call  it  mere  attrition,  that  is,  a  sort  of  penitence,  resulting  only  from  fear, 
having  no  love  to  God,  which  is  the  distinguishing  feature  of  contrition. 
Thus  Aquinas :  Antequam  gratia  infundatur  non  est  habitus  a  quo  actus  contri- 
tionis  postea  elieitur ;  est  sic  nullo  modo  atlritio,  potest  fieri  contritio.  "  Before 
grace  is  poured  into  the  heart  (in  Baptism)  there  is  no  habit  from  which  the  act 
of  contrition  may  be  elicited  ;  and  thus  in  no  way  can  attrition  become  contri' 
/jon."— Part  3.  Supp.  Q.  2,  A.  3. 
28 


218 


this,  that  in  the  opus  operatum  of  Baptism,  the  two 
schemes  of  Rome  and  Oxford  are  one. 

But  further,  in  consequence  of  the  doctrine  of  the 
Church  of  Rome,  as  to  the  immediate  efficacy  of  the 
Sacraments,  it  is  well  known  that  nothing  is  more 
studiously  kept  out  of  view,  as  pertaining  to  Baptism, 
and  the  Lord's  Supper,  than  that  they  are  signs  of 
grace;  the  one  a  sign  of  Regeneration,  instead  of 
Regeneration  itself — the  other  a  sign  of  the  body  and 
blood  of  Christ,  instead  of  being  the  body  and  blood 
itself. 

It  is  true,  that  in  the  defining  of  Sacraments  in 
general,  the  definition  of  Augustine  is  adopted — that 
a  Sacrament  is  a  visible  sign  of  an  invisible  grace." ^ 
But  when  they  come  to  the  definition  of  Baptism^ 
the  word,  sign,  is  omitted,  and  it  is  defined  as  "  the 
Sacrament  of  Regeneration.'^^  How  essentially  the 
idea  of  sign  is  dropped  by  the  doctrine  of  a  substan- 
tial transuhstantiation  in  the  Eucharist,  need  not  be 
said.  But  the  connection  between  their  doctrine  of 
Justification  and  their  view^  of  the  substantial  pre- 
sence of  Christ  in  the  Eucharist,  may  not  be  gene- 
rally perceived.  ^'  They  were  not  willing  to  conceive, 
(says  Jackson,)  how  Christ's  body  and  blood  could 
have  any  real  operation  upon  our  souls,  unless  they 
were  so  locally  present,  as  that  they  might  agree  per 
contactiim,  that  is  to  purge  our  souls  by  Oral  Mandu- 
cation^  as  physical  medicines  do,"  (which  is  the  pre- 
tended use  of  Transuhstantiation.)  Now,  is  not  this 
the  explanation  of  that  singular  effort  of  Oxford  Di- 
vinity, to  keep  out  of  sight,  as  much  as  possible,  and 


'  Catechism  of  Trent. 


219 


in  a  most  subordinate  position,  that  view  of  the  Sa- 
crament, which,  in  all  our  standards,  is  held  out  so 
prominently,  viz:  that  it  is  not  grace,  but  the  sigvb' 
of  grace,  and  to  fix  all  attention  upon  the  real  presence 
of  the  body  of  Christ,  in  and  under  the  Sacramental 
elements,  as  if  there  were  some  presence,  not  corpo- 
real indeed,  and  local,  as  Romanists  maintain,  nor 
yet  simply  a  presence  by  the  operations  of  his  Spirit 
conveying  the  spiritual  benefits  of  his  atonement  to 
the  believing  commimicant,  as  Protestants  teach; 
but  some  other  presence,  which  they  do  not  pretend  to 
define,  but  which  they  consider  as  intended  by  the 
words    This  is  my  body?'' 

Now  when  with  this,  we  connect,  what  appears  so 
conspicuously  in  the  writings  of  Mr.  Newman,  an 
utter  contempt  of  the  idea  of  Justification  by  a 
righteousness  external,  a  something  done  for  us  1800 
years  ago,  and  of  a  faith  looking  to  the  cross  of  Cal- 
vary for  remission  of  sins,  and  his  strong  insisting 
upon  an  inward  application  of  the  atonement,  a  cross 
rvithin,  a  present,  substantial  righteousness,  &c.  &c., 
we  may  see  the  plain  bearing  of  his  doctrine  of  Jus- 
tification upon  the  exclusion  of  the  idea  of  signs  in 
the  Sacrament,  and  the  fixing  of  his  whole  mind 
upon  a  "  substantial  presence  (as  the  Oxford  Tracts 
have  not  scrupled  to  say)  of  the  body  of  Christ.  In 
other  words,  his  doctrine  of  Justification  makes  him 
unable  to  conceive  how  Christ's  body  and  blood 
can  have  any  real  operation,  unless  by  contact'' 
The  idea  by  which  Jackson,  and  Andrewes,  and  the 
Catechism  of  Edward  sixth,  not  to  speak  of  others, 
explain  the  real  presence  of  Christ,  as  distinguished 
from  a  local  presence,  viz.  that  he  is  really  present. 


220 


when  present  effectively ^  as  he  was  to  the  woman  who 
touched,  not  him,  but  his  garment;  while  he  was 
locally^  but  not  effectively^  present  to  the  multitude 
that  pressed  and  touched  him,  but  who  derived  no 
benefit,  because  they  had  no  faith ;  this  idea,  carried 
into  application  to  the  believer's  faith,  in  the  Eu- 
charist, receiving  the  signs  of  the  body  and  blood  of 
Christ,  and  through  them,  ascending  to  heaven,  and 
making  Christ  present  to  it,  by  its  being  present  to 
him ;  this  sort  of  real  presence,  which  is  just  as  ap- 
plicable to  Christ's  imputed  righteousness,  as  to  his 
ascended  body  in  heaven,  is  too  distant  and  abstract 
and  visionary  for  Mr.  N.,  &c.,  and  therefore,  though 
not  denied  perhaps,  is  kept  out  of  view,  and  the  im- 
pression sought  to  be  produced,  is  that  there  is  some 
mysterious  presence  of  the  body  of  Christ  in  some 
other  sense,  which  is  neither  that  of  Romanists,  nor 
Protestants,  but  (like  their  doctrine  of  an  inherent 
righteousness  within  us,  but  not  in  us,'^)  a  suhstan- 
^z<3;/ presence,  but  not  corporeal;  a  real  presence  of  his 
real  body,  but  not  a  local  presence :  a  substantial  pre- 
sence, wherever  the  Eucharist  is  administered,  but 
not  the  presence  of  ubiquity  ;  not  transubstantiation ; 
but  the  next  thing  to  it,  and  acknowledging  itself  to 
be  a  great  deal  more  like  transubstantiation,  and  evi- 
dently sympathising  with  it  far  more,  than  with  the 
anti-transubstantiation  doctrine  of  Protestanism.^ 


'  The  following  extract  from  Dr.  Jackson,  on  the  Real  Presence  of  Christ  in 
the  Eucharist,  will  beautifully  explain  in  what  sense  the  Keal  Presence  was  un- 
derstood by  divines  of  the  days  of  Bishop  Andrewes,  &c.  Precisely  the  same 
illustration  is  used  by  Bishop  Andrewes. 

With  whomsoever  he  is  virtually  present,  that  is,  to  whomsoever  he  com- 
municates the  influence  of  his  body  and  blood  by  his  Spirit,  he  is  really  present 


221 


This  aversion  to  signs  in  the  sacraments,  this  opus 
operatu7?i'dociYme  is  broadly  declared  by  Dr.  Pusey, 
in  the  very  teeth  of  the  most  express  language  of  his 


with  them,  though  locally  absent  from  them.  Thus  he  was  really  present  with 
the  woman,  which  was  cured  of  her  bloody  issue,  by  touching  the  hem  of  his 
garment.  But  not  so  really  present  with  the  multitude  that  did  throng  and 
press  upon  him,  that  were  locally  more  present  with  him.  She  did  not  desire 
so  much  as  to  touch  his  body  with  her  hand,  for  she  said  in  herself,  Jf  I  may 
but  touch  the  hem  of  his  garment,  I  shall  be  -whole.  And  yet  by  our  Saviour's 
interpretation,  she  did  touch  him  more  immediately  than  they  which  were 
nearer  unto  him,  which  thrust  or  thronged  him.  And  the  reason  why  she  alone 
did  more  immediately  touch  him  than  any  of  the  rest,  was,  because  virtue  of 
healing  did  go  out  from  him  to  her  alone.  It  is  true,  then,  (for  our  Saviour 
saith  it)  her  faith  did  make  her  whole,  and  yet  she  was  made  whole  by  the 
virtue  which  went  out  from  him.  This  was  the  fruit  or  effect  of  her  faith — or 
rather  the  reward  or  consequent  of  her  faith.  In  like  sort,  as  many  as  are 
healed  from  their  sins,  whether  by  the  sacrament  of  Baptism  or  the  Eucharist, 
are  healed  by  faith  relatively  or  instrumentally.  Faith  is  the  mouth  or  or- 
gan, by  which  we  receive  the  medicine:  but  it  is  the  virtual  influence  derived 
from  the  body  and  blood  of  Christ  which  properly  or  efficiently  doth  cure  our 
souls  and  dissolve  the  works  of  Satan  in  us, 

"  This  woman,  as  St.  Matthew  relates  the  story,  had  said  within  herself,  if  I 
may  but  touch  the  hem  of  his  garment  I  shall  be  whole.  She  wanted  either 
the  opportunity  or  boldness  to  touch  the  fore  part  of  his  garment,  or  to  come 
into  his  sight  or  presence.  Yet  he  then  knew,  not  only,  that  she  had  touched 
the  hem  of  his  garment,  but  that  she  had  said  this  within  herself,  and  out  of  his 
knowledge  of  this  her  faith  and  humility,  he  did  pronounce  and  make  her  whole. 
Now  it  is  but  one  and  the  same  act  of  one  and  the  same  Divine  Wisdom,  to 
know  the  heart  and  secret  thoughts  of  men  afar  off  and  near  at  hand.  And 
therefore  a  matter  as  easy,  for  the  Son  of  God,  or  for  the  Man  Christ  Jesus,  in 
whom  ihe  Godhead  dwelleth  bodily,  though  still  remaining  at  the  right  hand  of 
God,  to  know  the  hearts  of  all  such  as  present  themselves  at  his  Table  here  on 
earth,  as  well  as  he  knew  the  secret  thoughts  of  this  woman  which  came  behind 
him.  What  rveed  then  is  there  of  his  Bodily  Presence  in  the  Sacrament,  or  of 
any  other  presence  than  the  influence  or  emission  of  virtue  from  his  heavenly 
sanctuary  unto  our  souls.  He  hath  left  us  the  consecrated  elements  of  bread 
and  wine,  to  be  unto  us  more  than  the  hem  of  his  garment,  if  we  do  but  touch 
and  taste  them  with  the  same  faith  by  which  this  woman  touched  the  hem  of 
his  garment.  This  our  faith  shall  make  us  whole,  and  staunch  the  running 
issues  (and  cleanse  or  cure  the  leprous  sores)  of  our  souls,  as  perfectly  as  it  did 
this  woman's  issue  of  blood. — Jackson^s  Works,  vol.  iii.  p.  307. 


222 

own  Church.  Baptism,  says  our  27th  Article,  "is  a 
sign  of  Regeneration  or  new  birth — whereby  the 
promises,  &c.,  are  visibly  signed  and  sealed''  But 
Dr.  Pusey  says  expressly,  ^'Baptism  is  not  a  sign,  hut 
the  putting  on  of  Christ — wherefore  Baptism  is  a 
thing  most  powerful  and  efficacious In  other 
words,  Baptism,  instead  of  being  the  sign  of  regene- 
ration, is  regeneration  itself.  It  is  in  itself  "most 
powerful  and  efficacious."  The  Church  of  Rome 
never  exceeded  this.  The  opus  operatum  was  never 
more  decidedly  and  boldly  expressed. 

The  reader  may  now  appreciate  a  singular  pas- 
sage, in  Dr.  Pusey's  Letter,  as  to  the  Romish  doctrine 
of  Baptism,  intended  to  produce  the  impression  that 
as  to  Baptismal  Regeneration  and  Justification,  the 
Romish  Church  and  the  Oxford  School  are  not  quite 
agreed,  the  latter  falling  below  the  mark,  somewhat 
as  do  Ultra  Protestants. 

"The  chief  charge  against  Rome,  as  to  the  Sacra- 
ment of  Baptism,  is  not  that  she  has  unduly  exalted 
it,  but  on  the  contrary  that  she  has  depreciated  it. 
She  insists  indeed  on  its  necessity,  and  there  leaves 
it.  Her  members  are  taught  to  look  upon  Baptism 
as  a  mere  preliminary  act,  in  the  hack-ground  as  it 
were  of  the  Christian  life;  the  foreground,  upon 
which  their  eye  is  fixed,  being  taken  up  by  their 
Sacrament  of  Penance  and  the  Eucharist.  As  to 
Holy  Baptism,  Rome  innovated  not;  and  yet  she 
has  doubly  lowered  it."^    One  would  suppose  that 


'  Views  of  Baptism,  p.  102. 

2  Sec  the  whole  passage  on  p.  76,  77,  of  Dr.  Pusey's  Letter.  Do  not  Oxford 
divines  commit  the  very  same  thing  with  which  they  charge  the  Romish  Church  ? 


223 


to  lower  baptism,  was  to  innovate.  But  the  lowering 
consists  not  in  any  lowering  of  Baptism,  but  in  a  rais- 
ing of  Penance  and  the  Eucharist.  If  the  reference 
be,  in  any  degree,  to  the  position  of  Baptism,  in  its 
necessity  and  efficacy  in  Regeneration  or  Justification, 
according  to  the  standard  of  Oxford  ism,  it  is  wholly 
unfounded.  There  is  not  a  word  in  the  latter,  as  to 
those  points,  which  is  not  to  be  found  in  Romish 
writers.  Thomas  Aquinas  is  entirely  an  Oxford 
man,  on  this,  as  well  as  other  matters.  It  would 
seem  to  be  a  singular  depression  of  Baptism  in  com- 
parison with  the  Eucharist,  to  assign  to  the  former 
the  power  of  remitting  Mortal  sins,  and  to  the  latter 
only  the  remission  of  Venial  sins,  a  power  given 
equally  to  holy  water^  the  Bishop's  blessing,  &c.;  to 
make  Baptism  the  communication  of  life  to  the  deady 
and  the  Eucharist,  only  the  continuation  of  that  life. 

Another  manifestation  of  the  doctrine  of  the  sacra- 
ments, in  which  Oxfordism  and  Romanism  singularly 
concur,  is  seen  in  the  entire  difference  drawn  hy  them 
between  the  Sacraments  of  the  Old  and  New  Testa- 
ments, in  regard  to  saving  efficacy. 

Nothing  is  more  notorious  than  the  fact  that  the 
old,  as  well  as  the  modern,  divines,  of  the  Church 
of  England,  have  regarded  the  sacraments  of  the 
two  dispensations,  Circiimcision  for  example,  as 
standing  on  precisely  the  same  footing  with  Baptism 
in  regard  to  the  spiritual  part  of  the  covenant  seal- 
ed; in  other  words,  that  the  only  vital  difference 


Do  they  not  say  that  "  as  Holy  Communion  conveys  a  more  awful  presence  of 
God  than  Holy  Baptism,  so  must  it  be  the  instrument  of  a  higher  justification  1"" 
— Newman  on  Justif.  p.  169. 


224 


was  in  the  sign ;  the  inward  and  spiritual  grace,  sig- 
nified, pledged,  sealed,  conveyed  and  confirmed,  was 
precisely  the  same  in  both.  On  this  identity,  it  is 
well  known  that  our  divines  have  been  accustomed 
confidently  to  argue  the  propriety  of  Infant  Baptism, 
because  the  spiritual  grace  being  the  same,  there 
could  be  no  reason  why  infants  under  the  Gospel 
should  be  excluded  from  Avhat  infants  under  the 
law^  enjoyed.  But  there  is  great  inconvenience  in 
this  identity  of  circumcision  and  baptism,  to  those 
who  hold  the  latter  to  be  the  only  instrument  of  justi- 
fication. Abraham  was  justified,  being  uncircumci- 
sed,  says  St.  Paul.  Consequently,  if  Circumcision 
and  Baptism  be  the  same,  a  sinner  may  be  justified 
being  unhaptized.  Again,  the  w^hole  generation  of 
Israel  that  were  born  in  the  wilderness  continued 
U7icircumcised,  some  of  them  nearly  forty  years ;  and 
this  by  divine  command :  nor  was  the  sacrament  of 
circumcision  given  them  till  they  had  entered  into 
Canaan.  If  Justification  was  linked  to  circumci- 
sion, as  we  are  now  taught  it  is  with  Baptism,  how 
could  all  that  generation  be  required  to  remain  so 
many  years  unjustified  ?  Evidently  it  could  not 
have  been ;  and  hence  results  a  most  inconvenient 
argument  against  Baptismal  Justification ;  and  how 
is  it  to  be  obviated  ?  Very  easily.  Our  Oxford  di- 
vines deny  that  Circumcision  and  Baptism  do  bear 
the  spiritual  resemblance  mentioned  above;  and 
holding  fast  the  exclusive  instrumentality  of  Baptism 
in  justification,  they  maintain  that,  since  the  Old 
Testament  Saints  w^ere  not  baptized,  they  were  not 
justified,  but  were  in  bondage,  under  the  law  and  not 
under  grace,  and  received  not  Justification  until 


225 


Christ  came,  and  with  him,  the  grace  and  gift  of 
Baptism.  To  this  general  rule  Mr.  Newman  makes 
Abraham  and  Eljah  exceptions. 

The  doctrine  is  not  only  that  the  sacraments  of 
the  Law  did  not  confer  grace ;  but  that  Justification 
and  Regeneration  were  not  conferred  except  in  spe- 
cial cases  before  the  Gospel. 

"  Judaism  (says  Mr.  Newman)  had  no  life,  no  spirit  in  its  ordi- 
nances to  connect  earth  to  heaven.  The  law  could  not  be  the 
means  of  life,  because  life  as  yet  was  not;  it  was  not  created.  The 
law  could  not  justify,  because  whatever  favour  might  be  shown  here 
and  there  hy  anticipation,  (as  in  Abraham's  case)  was  not  purchased 
as  a  free  gift  to  all  who  sought  it.  God  justified  Abraham,  and 
glorified  Elijah;  but  he  had  not  yet  promised  heaven  to  the  obe- 
dient or  acceptance  to  the  believing.  He  wrought  first  in  the  few, 
what  he  afterwards  ofl^ered  to  all ;  and  even  in  those  extraordinary 
instances  he  acted  immediately  from  himself,  not  through  the  Jew- 
ish law  as  his  instrument.  The  ceremonies  (Mr.  N.  will  not  call  them 
sacraments')  of  the  Law  were  tokens  not  of  the  presence  of  grace, 
but  of  its  absence — (they  were  not  so  much  a  means  of  grace  before 
grace  was  purchased.)  They  were  attempts  in  a  bad  case  towards 
what  was  needed — the  representative  of  nature  making  dumb  signs 
for  the  things  it  needed — the  Jews  were  told  to  approach  God  with 
works,  which  could  not  justify,  as  if  they  could,^^  (we  suppose  this 
is  on  the  plan  of  faith  being  rewarded  with  being  said  to  justify 
when  it  does  not)  "what  to  the  Jews  then  was  impossible  even  to 
the  last  is  imparted  to  us  from  the  first.  They  wrought  towards 
Justification,  and  we  from  it.  They  came  to  God  with  rites,  He 
comes  to  us  in  sacraments."  "  Regeneration  is  a  gift  of  the  Spirit 
not  promised  except  under  the  Gospel. 

In  the  same  strain,  Dr.  Pusey  complains  that  we 
"  take  what  is  said  of  Baptism,  as  if  it  inculcated 
the  same  as  circumcision.''^    The  new  birth  and  re- 


'  Newman's  Lectures,  p.  325-7.    2  ib.  p  287.    3  Views  of  Baptism,  p.  103. 
29 


226 


newal  of  the  Holy  Ghost  imparted  m  Baptism  are 
something  different  in  hind  (not,  the  reader  will 
observe,  in  clearness  of  light,  &c.,  hut  in  kind)  from 
what  had  been  before  made  known — the  relation  of 
Israel  as  the  child  of  God  could  but  shadow  forth, 
not  realize,  the  priyilege  of  our  sonship."^  The 
Flood  and  the  Red  Sea  are,  by  Dr.  Pusey,  put  on  a 
level,  as  ordinances,  with  Circumcision,  in  point  of 
grace.  All  are  mere  types — sacraments  they  are 
none.  "  Circumcision  (says  Dr.  Pusey)  was  no  means 
nor  channel  of  spiritual  grace."  It  was  only  ''a 
type  of  Baptism" — a  mere  "symbol"  or  "shadow."^ 

From  all  this  it  is  manifest  not  only  that  the  sacra- 
mental character  is  denied  to  circumcision,  which 
St.  Paul  says  was  a  "  seal  of  the  righteousness  hy 
faith,  which  Abraham  had  being  uncircumcised  but 
that  all  those  who  lived  before  the  Gospel,  from 
Adam  downwards,  with  some  favoured  exceptions, 
were  without  regeneration,  without  justification,  with- 
out any  promise  or  acceptance  of  heaven,  and  did  not 
receive  any,  till  Christ  came. 

Now  Simon  Magus,  because  he  received  Christian 
Baptism,  is  supposed  by  Dr.  P.  to  have  been  Re- 
generated and  Justified at  least  that  writer  sees  no 
reason  to  suppose  the  contrary,  because  he  is  said  to 
have  believed,  though  it  is  not  pretended  that  he  be- 
lieved before  Baptism,  with  a  living  faith,  and  though 
an  apostle  so  soon  after  pronounced  him  in  the  bonds 
of  iniquity.^  So  also  Voltaire,  Rousseau,  and  all 
other  infidels  and  reprobates,  who  were  baptized  in 


'  Views  of  Bap.  p.  49. 


2  lb.  p.  254. 


ni).  p.  185, 


227 


infancy,  when  they  could  place  no  impediment  of  infi- 
delity or  hypocricy  to  the  efficacy  of  Baptism,  were 
once  Regenerate  and  Justified,  entirely  cleansed  from 
the  stain  of  sin,  and  had,  as  Tract  No.  82,  says,  all 
thus  baptized  did  receive,  ''so  super-abounding  and 
awful  a  grace  tabernacled  in  them,  that  no  other 
words  describe  it  more  nearly  than  to  call  it  an 
Angel's  nature,"  ''a  Divine  presence  in  the  soul, 
abiding,  abundant,  and  efficacious,"  distinguished 
from  the  greatest  gift  of  the  Spirit  to  the  saints  of 
the  Old  Testament,  in  this,  viz :  that  though  "  he 
influenced  their  hearts,  he  did  not  reside  in  them^^ 
This  most  distinguishing  grace  of  Baptism  which 
Dr.  Pusey  says,  ''gives  a  depth  to  our  Christian  ex- 
istence, an  actualness  to  our  union  to  Christ,  a  reality 
to  our  sonship  to  God,  an  overivhelmingness  (for  this 
system  makes  words,  as  well  as  doctrines,)  to  the 
dignity  conferred  on  human  nature — a  substantiality 
to  the  indwelling  of  Christ;"^  all  this  Simon  Magus, 
for  aught  Dr.  P.  sees,  may  have  had,  and  fallen  so 
soon  and  awfully,  and  all  this,  all  reprobates  and 
Atheists  who  were  baptized  in  infancy,  certainly 
once  possessed.  But  none  of  this,  did  those  noble 
men  of  God,  Moses,  and  Noah,  and  Samuel,  and 
all  that  "cloud  of  witnesses"  who,  "through  faith, 
subdued  kingdoms,  wrought  righteousness;"  "ob- 
tained a  good  report  through  faith,"  "died  in  faith." 
Alas!  No — says  Oxfordism,  because,  says  St.  Paul, 
"they  received  not  the  promise,  God  having  pro- 
vided some  better  thing  for  us,  that  they  without  us 
should  not  be  made  perfect."^    That  better  thing 


'  No.  82,  pp.  V6  and  14.  2  Vjpws  of  Holy  Baptism,  p,  16. 

^  Heb.  xi.  .39,  40. 


228 


says  this  divinity  is  Baptism.  One  would  suppose  a 
system  could  hardly  need  a  more  entire  condemna- 
tion. 

Dr.  Pusey  assigns  as  a  reason  for  the  usual  teach- 
ing among  Protestants  of  the  sameness  of  the  Sacra- 
ments of  Circumcision  and  Baptism,  as  to  the 
spiritual  grace  consignated,  "  an  over-anxious  seeking 
for  some  scriptural  justification  of  infant  Baptism, 
since  they  debarred  themselves  from  appealing  to  the 
authority  of  the  Church''  Now  if  the  reader  will 
consult  Bishop  Taylor  on  Baptism,  (whom  we  cite 
because  he  is  a  great  favourite  with  these  writers,) 
Part  1,  Sect,  ix.,  of  his  ''Liberty  of  Prophesying," 
Sect,  xviii.,  he  will  find  not  only  that  /^e  was  not  dis- 
posed to  rest  the  Baptism  of  Infants  on  the  authority 
of  the  Church,  but  that  in  appealing  to  Scripture  in 
its  favour,  he  places  his  argument  upon  the  entire 
identity  of  Circumcision  and  Baptism  in  all  spiritual 
respects, 

"  That  (he  says)  which  is  of  the  greatest  persuasion,  is  that  the 
children  of  the  Church  are  as  capable  of  the  same  covenant  as  the 
children  of  the  Jews,  for  it  was  the  same  covenant  that  circumcision 
did  consign,  a  spiritual  covenant,  under  a  veil;  and  now  it  is  the 
same  spiritual  covenant  without  a  veil.^^  Circumcision  princi- 
pally related  to  an  effect  and  a  blessing  greater  than  was  afterwards 
expressed  in  the  temporal  promise,  which  effect  was  forgiveness  of 
sins,  justification  by  faith."  "  The  promises  which  circumcision  did 
seal,  were  the  same  promises  which  are  consigned  in  Baptism." 

To  as  many  persons,  and  in  as  many  capacities,  and  in  the  same 
dispositions  as  the  promises  were  applied,  and  did  relate,  in  circum- 
cision, to  the  same  do  they  belong,  and  may  be  applied  in  Baptism" 
— "  the  covenant  which  circumcision  did  sign,  was  a  covenant  of 
grace  and  faith  ;  the  promises,  were  of  the  Spirit,  or  spiritual."^ 

>  Bp.  Taylor  on  Baptism,  p.  1,  §  ix.  See  also  Bp.  Jewel  on  the  Sacraments, 
Fathers  of  Eng.  Ch.  vol.  vii.  p.  488,  494.  Homily  on  Common  Prayer  and 
Sacraments. 


229 


But  what  does  our  Church,  in  her  Homilies,  say? 
We  adduce  the  following-  passage,  not  to  show  the 
truth,  for  it  needs  no  showing,  but  to  show  the  mis- 
erable shifts  to  which  this  system  is  driven.  The 
second  part  of  the  Homily  on  Faith,  after  describing 
the  faith  of  those  Fathers  and  Martyrs,  and  other 
holy  men  whom  Paul  spoke  of,  in  Heb.  xi.  says, 
"  This  is  the  Christian  faith  which  these  holy  men 
had,  and  we  also  ought  to  have." 

"And  although  they  were  not  named  Christian  men,  yet  was  it  a 
Christian  faith  that  they  h?id  :  for  theT/ looked  for  all  henefts  of 
God  the  Father,  through  the  merits  of  his  Son  Jesus  Christy  as  we 
now  do.  This  difference  is  between  them  and  us — that  they  looked 
when  Christ  should  come,  and  we  be  in  the  time  when  he  is  come. 
Therefore,  saith  St.  Augustine,  the  time  is  altered  and  changed, 
but  not  the  faith.  For  we  have  both  one  faith,  in  one  Christ. 
The  same  Holy  Ghost  also  that  we  have,  had  they,  (2  Corin* 
iv,  13),  saith  St.  Paul.  For  as  the  Holy  Ghost  doth  teach  us  to 
trust  in  God,  and  to  call  upon  him  as  our  Father;  so  did  he  teach 
them  to  say,  as  it  is  written,  '  Thou,  Lord,  art  our  Father  and 
Redeemer;  and  thy  name  is  without  beginning,  and  everlasting.^ 
(Isa.  Ixiii.  16.)  God  gave  them  then  grace  to  be  his  children,  as  he 
doth  us  now.  But  now,  by  the  coming  of  our  Saviour  Christ,  we 
have  received  more  abundantly  the  Spirit  of  God  in  our  hearts; 
whereby  we  may  conceive  a  greater  faith,  and  a  surer  trust,  than 
many  of  them  had.  But  in  effect  they  and  we  be  all  one  :  we  have 
the  same  faith  that  they  had  in  God,  and  they  the  same  that  we 
have." 

Now  is  it  credible  that  such  a  passage  could  be 
produced  by  our  Oxford  Gentlemen  as  e\idence  that 
the  Church  teaches  nothing  opposed  to  their  doc- 
trine? It  is  extracted  in  Tract  No.  82,  a  tract  in 
express  defence  of  Dr.  Pusey,  on  Baptismal  Regene- 
ration, and  the  remarks  succeeding  it  are  a  fair  spe- 
cimen of  the  treatment  which  the  standards  of  the 


230 


Church,  as  well  as  the  Scriptures,  receive  from  those 
scholars,  and  logicians.  Thus  writes  the  Tracta- 
rian  immediately  after  that  extract. 

"  Though  man's  duties  were  the  same,  his  gifts  were  greater  after 
Christ  came.  Whatever  spiritual  aid  was  vouchsafed  before,  yet 
afterwards  it  was  a  Divine  presence  in  the  soul,  abiding  abundant 
and  efficacious.  In  a  word,  it  was  the  Holy  Ghost  himself,  who 
influenced  indeed  the  heart  before,  but  is  not  revealed  as  residing  in 
it:'' 

But  the  reader  will  ask,  in  astonishment,  how  can 
men  thus  write  under  pretence  of  not  being  incon- 
sistent with  the  standards  of  the  Church,  when  the 
Homily  says  expressly,  that  as  we  have  the  Holy 
Ghost,  so  had  the  Old  Testament  Fathers  ?  If  he 
will  look  at  the  extract  from  the  Homily,  he  will 
see  how  such  things  may  be  done.  The  Tract  wri- 
ter sets  out  to  quote  the  Homilies.  He  begins  with 
the  first  sentence  of  the  extract  as  above.  Then  all 
that  follows,  and  what  we  have  distinguished  by 
Italics,  is  omitted;  The  very  pith  of  the  passage, 
just  what  asserts  the  very  opposite  of  his  doctrine — 
all  omitted.  But  does  he  give  us  any  notice  of  an  omis- 
sion ?  So  far  from  it  that  the  two  sentences,  next 
before  and  after  the  Italics,  are  joined  by  a  colon, 
precisely  as  if  they  were  members  of  the  same  sen- 
tence, and  not  a  word  is  said,  or  a  remark  is  made,  to 
indicate  that  a  word  of  the  passage  has  been  left 
out.  Comment  upon  such  shifts  to  hide  the  glaring 
departure  of  this  wretched  coveting  of  popery,  from 
the  doctrines  of  that  Church,  which  these  writers 
profess  to  love  and  to  be  consistent  with,  is  needless. 

The  same  views  of  the  sacraments  and  privileges 

'  No.  82,  p.  xiii.  Eng.  Ed. 


231 


of  the  Old  Testament  saints  which  we  have  given 
from  the  Homilies  and  Bishop  Taylor  may  be  found 
every  where  in  tlie  divines  of  the  English  Church. 
Scarcely  any  argument  have  they  written  on  the 
scriptural  warrant  for  Infant  Baptism,  in  which  they 
have  not  been  presented.  Thus  are  our  Oxford 
Restorationists  constrained  by  their  doctrine  of  Bap- 
tismal Justification  into  a  consequence  directly  at 
war  with  the  most  common  and  notorious  verities  of 
Protestant  divinity.  But  precisely  where  they  do 
thus  differ  from  our  Protestant  divines,  they  agree 
with  those  of  Rome.  Their  very  doctrine  and  pre- 
cisely their  reasons  are  found  in  Romish  divinity. 

The  Schoolmen  described  the  difference  between 
the  sacraments  of  the  two  Testaments,  by  making 
the  efiicacy  of  those  of  the  New,  to  proceed  ex  opere 
operatOj  that  is  without  an  internal  piety  in  the  re- 
cipient; while  that  of  the  Old,  preceded  ex  opere 
operante,  that  is  from  a  living  faith,  or  a  pious  affec- 
tion of  the  recipient.  And  the  Council  of  Florence, 
confirming  the  opinion  of  the  schoolmen,  said  that 
the  sacraments  of  the  Old  Testament  did  not  con- 
fer grace ;  but  as  types  or  figures,  they  signified  that 
it  was  to  be  afterwards  given  through  the  passion  of 
Christ;  while  our  sacraments  both  contain  grace,  i 
and  confer  it  on  those  who  worthily  receive  them.^ 


>  Chemnitz  Examen.  Dec.  Cone.  Trid.  p.  207. 

The  doctrine  of  Aquinas  as  to  the  relations  between  the  Sacraments  of  the 
Old  Testament  and  the  inward  grace  signified,  is  almost  precisely  what  our 
Articles  express  concerning  that  relation  in  the  Sacraments  of  the  Gospel — » 
strong  evidence  not  that  the  dignity  of  the  former  had  been  depressed,  but  that 
of  the  latter  unduly  magnified.  He  says  the  Sacraments  of  the  Old  Testamervt 
were  professions  of  faith,  signifyiiig  the  passion  of  Christ  and  its  benefits,  but 
they  had  not  any  virtue  in  themselves  by  which  they  conferred  grace,  but  were 


232 

The  reader  may  very  reasonably  enquire  here 
what,  in  the  view  of  those  who  think  thus  concern- 
ing the  Old  Testament  Saints,  did  become  of  their 
souls  after  death — did  they  go  to  Heaven  ?  Romish 
divinity  answers  Nay — and  reasonably,  because  they 
were  not  regenerated  nor  justified,  since  Christ  had 
not  died,  and  therefore  Baptism  was  not  given. 
Where  then?  To  Limhus  Fatrum,  answers  Ro- 
manism. 

The  Jesuit,  whom  Usher  answered,  undertook  to 
prove,  not  only  that  there  is  a  Limbus  Patrum,  but 
that  our  Saviour  descended  into  hell  to  deliver  the 
ancient  Fathers  of  the  Old  Testament ;  because,  be- 
fore his  passion,  none  ever  entered  into  heaven. 
Whether  that  Limbus  were  distinct  from  that  in 
which  infants  that  die  without  Baptism,  are  now  be- 
lieved by  the  Ramish  Church  to  be  received,  the 
divines  do  doubt,  says  Maldonat.    The  Dominicans 


only  signs  of  that  faith  by  which  the  saints  were  justified.  They  differed  from 
the  Sacraments  of  the  New  Testament  in  this,  that  the  latter  contain  grace, 
as  in  a  vessel  which  is  thus  made  an  instrument  of  grace — while  in  the  former 
grace  was  conferred  only  as  they  were  signs  of  the  passion  of  Christ.  Sacra- 
menta  veteris  legis  erant  quaedam  illius  fidei  protestationes,  in  quantum  signi- 
ficabant  passionem  Christi  et  effectus  ejus.  Sic  ergo  patet  quod  non  habeiant 
in  se  aliquam  virtutem,  qua  operarentur  ad  conferendaro  gratiam  jostificationis, 
sed  solum  signa  erant  fidei  per  qiiam  jiistifcahantur. 

After  giving  various  opinions  in  his  day  as  to  the  efficacy  of  circumcision, 
showing  that  this  doctrine  was  by  no  means  then  well  settled,  for  instance  one 
of  Peter  Lombard,  that  circumcision  took  away  sin,  though  it  did  not  confer 
grace,  and  another  that  it  conferred  grace  so  as  to  make  one  worthy  of  eternal 
life,  but  not  to  repress  concapiscence  tempting  him  to  sin,  Aquinas  concludes 
that  it  is  best  to  say  that  circumcision,  as  other  Sacraments  of  the  Old  Law, 
was  '■'■only  a  sign  of  Justifying  faith,"  and  therefore  in  it  grace  was  conferred, 
inasmuch  as  it  was  a  sign  of  the  future  passion  of  Christ.  In  circumcisione  eon- 
ferebatur  gratia,  in  qiiantnm  erat  signum  passionis  Christi  futurse^P.  1.  2. 
Q.  62.  A.  6.&  Q.  70,  A.  4. 


233 


in  1252,  answered  in  the  affirmative.  "  The  more 
common  opinion,  (says  Usher,)  is  that  these  be  two 
distinct  places" — that  of  the  Fathers,  "now  being 
emptied  of  its  old  inhabitants."^  That  our  Oxford 
Divines  have  said  any  thing  directly  on  this  subject. 


•  Usher's  Answer  to  a  Jesuit,  c.  viii. 
"  The  Romish  doctrine  of  the  Limbus  Patrum,  or  the  absence  of  the  Old  Testa- 
ment Saints  from  the  vision  of  God,  and  their  enduring  in  limbo  a  certain  nega- 
tive evil,  consisting  in  the  w^ant  of  what,  since  the  New  Testament  blessedness,  the 
dead  in  Christ  and  all  departed  saints  have  inherited,  arose  entirely  out  of  this 
figment  of  the  difference  between  the  spiritual  efficacy  of  the  Sacraments  of  the 
two  dispensations  ;  and  in  its  essential  character,  it  is  a  necessary  consequence  of 
that  doctrine  of  the  Sacraments  in  which  Oxford  Divinity  and  Romish  so  well 
agree. 

The  doctrine  of  Romanism,  as  to  the  state  of  the  dead,  is  given,  in  all  its 
fulness,  in  the  "  Angelic  Doctor."  Aquinas  enumerates  five  receptacula  for  dis- 
embodied souls,  according  to  their  several  states,  viz.  Paradise,  Limbus  Pa- 
trum, (for  the  Old  Testament  Saints)  Limbus  Puerum,  (for  children  unbap- 
tized,)  Purgatory,  and  Hell.  The  Limbus  Patrum,  and  Puerum,  and  the 
place  of  positive  punishment  of  the  wicked,  are  all  considered,  as  to  location, 
essentially  one.  Quantum  ad  situm  loci,  sunt  loca  continua  ;  though  they  differ 
as  to  quality — that  of  children,  being  an  upper  apartment  to  that  of  the  damned, 
that  of  the  Old  Testament  Saints,  before  the  Advent  of  Christ,  superior  {pars 
superior,)  to  all.  Supremum  et  minus  tenebrosum  locum  habuerunt  omnibus 
puniendis.  The  Limbus  Patrum,  and  "Abraham's  bosom,''  are  supposed  to 
have  been  the  same  before  the  advent  of  Christ.  Since  the  descent  of  Christ, 
did  inferos  the  bliss  of  the  Old  Testament  Saints  has  been  rendered  as  complete 
as  that  of  the  departed  saints  under  the  Christian  Dispensation.  But  before 
that,  they  endured  the  pain  of  hope  deferred,  dolor  de  dilatione  speratse  gloriae, 
privatio  gloriae  speratse;  et  secundum  hoc  habet  rationem  inferni,  et  doloris. 
This  dolor  is  called  "  an  exclusion  from  the  life  of  glory,"  and  the  reason  given 
for  the  incarceration  of  the  Old  Testament  Saints  in  that  Limbus,  is  that  al- 
though they  had  been  liberated  by  the  faith  of  Christ  from  all  sin,  as  well  origi- 
nal, as  actual,  and  from  all  liability  to  punishment  for  actual  sin,  they  had  not 
been  from  liability  to  punishment  {for  original  sin,)  a  reatu  paenae  originalis 
peccati;  and  the  reason  for  this  is  just  the  reason  given  by  Oxford  divines,  as 
shown  above,  viz.,  that  the  price  of  redemption  was  not  yet  paid,  Christ  had  not 
died, — nondum  soluto  pretio  redemptionis.    And  therefore  Christ  descending 

ad  inferos,  by  virtue  of  his  passion,  absolved  those  Saints  from  this  liability  

ab  hoc  reatu,  that  they  might  see  God,  per  essentiam. — Aquinas,  P.  3.  Q.  52, 
&  Suppl.  Q.  69. 
30 


234 


we  know  not;  but  how  they  can  escape  a  Limbu& 
Patrum,  substantially  the  same  as  that  which  has 
been  set  apart  for  the  accommodation  of  the  Romish 
doctrine  of  Baptismal  Justification,  we  cannot  con- 
ceive. If  nothing  under  the  Jewish  dispensation  did 
confer  grace,  if  Hegeneration  and  Justification  were 
not  promised,  nor  given,  till  Christ  came;  if  heaven, 
nor  acceptance,  was  promised  to  obedience,  as  is 
maintained ;  then,  though  "in  some  favoured  cases," 
God  may  have  given  justification,  directhj,  and  not 
through  the  Jewish  dispensation  ;  yet,  as  to  the  multi- 
tude of  them  that  believed,  all  those,  for  instance, 
who  are  mentioned  in  Hebrews  [eleventh  Chap.)  the 

great  cloud  of  witnesses"  who  all  died  in  faith,' ^ 
it  must  follow  that  they  did  not  enter  into  heaven. 
But  certainly  they  did  not  go  into  a  place  of  torment. 
It  remains  that  they  must  have  gone  to  some  place 
intermediate  between  that  of  the  impenitent,  and  that 
of  the  Justified,  waiting  the  coming  of  Christ,  and 
from  which  they  were  delivered  when  he  had  ac- 
complished that  of  which  all  their  religion  had  been, 
in  the  view  of  this  system,  but  an  inoperative,  ineffi- 
cacious shadow. 

The  comparison  of  Oxford  Divinity,  with  that  of 
our  Church  and  standard  divines,  on  the  main  topics 
now  brought  into  comparison  with  Romanism,  viz ; 
the  constituent  principle  of  Justification,  the  Nature 
and  Office  of  Justifying  Faith,  and,  Sacramental 
Justification,  will  be  reserved  for  other  Chapters. 
We  finish  the  present  subject  by  quoting  the  testimo- 
ny of  Bishop  Burnet,  on  Sacramental  Justification. 

"  It  is  a  tenet  of  the  Church  of  Rome,  that  the  use  of  the  Sacra- 
ments, if  men  do  not  put  a  bar  to  them,  and  if  they  have  only  im- 


•235 


perfect  acts  of  sorroiv,  accompanying  them,  does  so  far  complete 
those  weak  acts,  as  to  justify  us.  This  we  do  utterly  deny,  as  a 
doctrine  that  tends  to  enervate  all  religion  ;  and  to  make  the  Sacra- 
ments, that  were  appointed  to  be  the  solemn  acts  of  religion  for 
quickening  and  exciting  our  piety,  and  for  conveying  grace  to  us, 
upon  our  coming  devoutly  to  them,  become  means  to  flatten  and 
deaden  us,  as  if  they  were  of  the  nature  of  charms,  which,  if  they 
could  be  come  at  with  ever  so  slight  a  preparation,  would  make  up 
all  defects.  The  doctrine  of  Sacramental  Justification,  is  justly  to 
be  reckoned  among  the  most  mischievous  of  all  those  practical  er- 
rors that  are  in  the  Church  of  Rome.  Since,  therefore,  this  is  no 
where  mentioned  in  all  these  large  discourses,  that  are  in  the  New 
Testament,  concerning  Justification,  we  have  just  reason  to  reject  it; 
since  also  the  natural  consequence  of  this  doctrine  is  to  make  men  rest 
contented  in  low  imperfect  acts,  when  they  can  be  so  easily  made  up 
by  a  Sacrament,  we  have  just  reason  to  detest  it  as  one  of  the  depths 
of  Satan^  "  And  thus  we  object,  not  without  great  zeal,  against  the 
fatal  effects  of  this  error,  all  that  is  said  of  the  opus  operatum;  the 
very  doing  of  the  Sacrament ;  we  think  it  looks  more  like  the  incan- 
tations of  Heathenism,  than  the  purity  and  simplicity  of  the  Christian 
Religion."^ 


'  Burnet  on  Articles  xi.  and  xxv. 


CHAPTER  VIII. 


DOCTRINE    OF    OXFORD    DIVINITY     FURTHER    EXHIBITED     BY  ITS 
EFFECTS  UPON  OTHER  DOCTRINES  AND  PARTS  OF  ' 
CHRISTIANITY. 

Effects  upon  the  doctrine  of  Original  Sin  ;  Testimony  of  Jackson  to  the  Pecu- 
liar Romanism  of  these  results — Sin  after  Baptism — Mortal  and  Venial 
Sins — Tendencies  of  Oxford  Divinity  to  the  doctrine  of  Purgatory — to 
Prayers  for  the  dead — Invocation  of  Saints — Transubstantiation — Working 
of  Miracles — Auricular  Confession— Extreme  Unction — Anointing  at  Bap- 
tism and  Confirmation — Additional  matters  of  Restoration  contemplated — 
Sacramental  character  of  Marriage  countenanced — Use  of  Romish  Prayer 
Books  and  Rules  of  Fasting — Favour  to  Image-Worship — Christian  Holi- 
ness— Tradition  ;  Why  this  topic  reserved  to  the  last — Extracts  from  the  late 
Charge  of  Bishop  Wilson. 

In  the  two  preceding  chapters  we  have  exhibited  the 
developments  of  the  grand  principle  of  Oxford  Divi- 
nity, as  already  seen  in  its  effects  upon  the  doctrine 
of  Faith  and  of  the  Sacraments.  We  proceed  to  fur- 
ther ramifications,  in  evidence  that  the  tree  of  Ro- 
manism, planted  in  the  classic  soil  of  Oxford,  is 
bringing  forth  Romish  fruit,  and  going  on  to  do  so 
more  and  more,  and  may  thus  be  known,  according 
to  the  scriptural  test,  to  be  good,  or  evil,  according  as 
any  one  may  consider  the  spreading  shade  of  Popery 
to  be  good  or  bad.    Tendimus  in  Latiim. 

We  begin  with  the  doctrine  of  Original  Sin. 

As  we  are  not  arguing  with  Romanists,  a  protest- 
ant  authority  may  answer  for  a  view  of  their  doc- 
trine ;  and  as  we  are  dealing  with  Oxford-men,  no 
protestant  authority  could  be  more  in  place  than 
that  of  the  learned  Dr.  Jackson,  whom  we  have  se- 


238 


veral  times  quoted  already,  and  whose  authority  we 
have  said,  is  now  of  great  price  in  the  new  school 
of  Oxford  theology. 

This  author,  in  the  beginning  of  his  third  volume, 
is  writing  on  Original  Sin. 

He  begins  by  stating,  that  many  Divines  (School- 
men) have  peremptorily  determined  that  the  Righte- 
ousness of  the  First  Man,  did  formally  coiisist  in  a 
PECULIAR  GRACE,  SUPERNATURAL,  even  to  Mm  f  Con- 
sequently, that  Adam's  Justificatioii,  or  his  being 
accounted  Righteous ^  before  he  sinned,  was  not  on  ac- 
count of  his  beins^  created  in  the  Imao-e  and  Like- 
ness  of  God,  but  on  account  of  something  superadded 
to  his  constitution,  as  he  was  the  work  of  God,  and 
without  sin,  viz :  a  Grace  Supernatural,  in  which  was 
his  Justifying  Righteousness ;  so  that,  in  the  creation 
of  the  first  man,  there  were  two  distinct  works  of 
God ;  one  of  which  consisted  in  making  him  in  God's 
own  Image;  the  second,  in  endowing  him  with  a 
certain  Supernatural  Grace  or  Righteousness,  over 
and  ahove  that  perfect  Image;  as  if  in  making  a 
round  body,  there  were  two  distinct  works,  the  one, 
in  making  the  round  body,  the  other,  in  giving  it 
rotundity;  so  that  Original  Sin  consists  not  in  the 
loss  of  any  thing  natural  to  Adam,  as  he  was  the 
work  of  God,  but  only  in  the  loss  of  a  Righteousness 
Supernatural]  not  in  any  positive  effect,  any  ^'infec- 
tion of  nature^''  as  our  Article  has  it;  not  'Hn  the 
coming  in  of  a  multiplicity  of  wounds  or  diseases  in 
our  nature,''  but  only  in  a  '^privation  of  that  Super- 
natural Graced  ^ 


'  Whoever  will  take  the  trouble  to  consult  the  Schoolmen  of  the  I3th  and 
14th  Centuries,  will  find  them  full  of  this  doctrine.    Thomas  Aquinas  treats  of 


239 


"  To  maintain  this  opinion,  (says  Jackson,)  the 
Romish  Church,  {especially  since  the  puhlishing  of  the 
Gallons  of  the  Trent  Council,)  is  deeply  engaged:  For 
unless  this  supposition  be  granted,  many  dogmatical 
resolutions  which  the  whole  Christian  world  is  by 
the  Romish  Church  bound  to  believe,  suh  poena 
Anathematis,  cannot  possibly,  or  with,  any  mediocrity 
of  possibility,  be  maintained." 

Among  the  consequences  from  this  Romish  dogma, 
wbicli  Jackson  deduces,  are  the  two  following. 

1.  That  if  Original  Sin  be  only  XhQ  privation  of  a 
supernatural  grace  or  righteousness,  superadded  to 
the  original  image  of  God,  in  man,  then  the  restoration 
of  that  supernatural  gift,  will  be  both  the  removal  of 
original  sin,  and  Justification  from  it;  consequently, 
*'the  satisfaction  of  our  Lord  Jesus  Christ  had  been 
superfluous ;  and  the  opinion  of  the  Socinians  would 
be  more  tolerable  and  more  justifiable,  than  the  doc- 
trine of  the  Romish  Church,  so  far  as  it  concerns  the 
value  or  efficacy  of  Christ's  suff'erings,  or  Satisfac- 
tion by  his  Merits,  or  Justification  by  rvorks,  rather 
than  by  faith,  especially  works  of  the  Moral  Law." 

2.  The  second  consequence  (and  that  to  which, 
we  ask  a  special  attention)  is  that,  if  this  dogma  be 
true,  "  we  of  the  Reformed  Churches  (says  Jackson) 


it  in  Quest  95  of  Part  1.  In  answer  to  the  question,  "  whether  the  first  man 
was  created  in  grace,"  he  says:  Primus  homo  non  fuit  creatus  in  gratia.  Ilia 
prima  subjectio  qua  ratio  sandebatur  Deo,  non  erat  solum  secundum  naturam,  sed 
secundum  svperjiaturale  doiium  gratiae.  "  The  first  man  was  not  created  in 
grace.  The  subjection  of  his  mind  to  God  was  not  only  according  to  nature, 
but  the  result  of  a  sapernatural  gift  of  grace."  Instead  of  the  illustration  given 
by  Jackson  of  the  difference  between  a  round  body  and  rotundity^  Aquinas  in- 
stanced the  difference  between  a  -white  body  and  -whiteness — so  important  are 
the  distinctions  of  scholastic  theology. 


240 


should  be  concluded  to  yield,  that  Adam's  posterity 
were  to  be  formally  justified  by  Inherent  Righteous- 
ness^    The  deduction  is  thus  made  by  our  author. 

*♦  It  is  in  confesso,  and  more  than  so,  an  undoubted  Maxim  of 
the  Church  of  Rome,  that  the  grace  which  is  infused  by,  and  from, 
our  Lord  Jesus  Christ,  is  a  supernatural  quality,  or  a  qualification 
more  sovereign  than  the  first  grace  which  God  bestowed  on  the  first 
Man.  Now  if  that  Grace  were  a  super-addition  to  his  Nature,  or 
constitution,  as  he  was  the  work  of  God,  the  loss  of  that  grace  could 
not  have  made  any  wound  in  the  human  Nature  which  the  least  drop 
of  that  Grace,  which  daily  distilleth  from  the  second  Adam,  might 
not  more  than  fully  cure.  In  respect  of  these  and  other  reasons 
which  might  be  alleged,  all  such  congregations  or  assemblies  of 
Christian  men  as  have  departed,  or  have  been  extruded  out  of 
the  Romish  Church,  stand  deeply  engaged  to  deny,  that  the 
Righteousness  of  the  first  man  was  a  Grace  or  Quality 
Supernatural."^ 

Now  here  it  is  evident  that  it  was  the  adoption  of 
Justification  by  an  Inherent  Righteousness  that  led, 
in  self-defence,  to  this  strange  perversion  of  the  doc- 
trine of  original  Righteousness,  and  consequently  of 
Original  Sin.  The  idea  is,  that  as  what  Adam  lost 
by  sin,  we  gain  by  grace,  then  if  it  was  a  supernat- 
IJ RALLY  infused  grace  or  gift  that  he  lost,  and  thus 
came  under  condemnation,  it  is  then  a  supernatu 
RALLY  infused  grace  whereby  we  are  to  be  delivered 
from  condemnation  or  to  be  Justified. 

But  this  is  precisely  the  doctrine  of  Oxford  Di- 
vinity. The  way  of  Justification  taught  therein 
has  wrought  precisely  the  same  change  upon  the 
doctrine  of  Original  Righteousness  and  Sin,  and  for 
the  same  reasons. 

Mr.  Newman  takes  the  ground  that  such  strong 


'Jackson's  Works,  vol.  iii.  pp.  4,  5,  6. 


•241 


expressions  of  Scripture  as  being  '^clothed  with  the 
garments  of  salvation,'"  ''bring  forth  the  best  robe  and 
put  it  on  him''  S^c,  having  ''put  on  Christ,''  ''can- 
not very  well  be  taken  to  mean  newness  of  life,  holi- 
ness and  obedience,  for  this  reason — that  no  one  is 
all  at  once  holy  and  renewed  in  that  full  sense  which 
must  be  implied,  if  these  terms  be  interpreted  of  ho- 
liness." ''Thus  there  is  a  call  for  some  more  ade- 
quate interpretation  of  such  passages  than  is  sup- 
plied by  the  Roman  or  Protestant  creed." 

Now  the  unwary  reader  w^ill  suppose  that  Mr. 
Newman  is  going  to  furnish  something  indeed  in 
which  Romanism  is  defective.  He  wall  be  amazed 
to  find  that  his  interpretation  is  nothing  but  the  very 
Romanism  given  by  Jackson  as  above  ;  found,  not  in- 
deed in  the  formal  creed  of  Rome,  as  contained  in 
the  Canons  of  Trent,  but  in  those  ''Doctors"  of  the 
Church  of  Rome,  to  whom  it  is  maintained,  in  No. 
71  of  the  Tracts,  we  have  a  right  to  go,  for  "  the  le- 
gitimate comment"  upon,  and  elucidation  of,  "the  ac- 
tual system  represented  in  the  Tridentine  decrees."^ 
In  Mr.  Newman's  particular  friends  the  Schoolmen, 
and  others,  who  maintained  a  sort  of  tertium  qiiid- 
distinction,  between  Inherent  Righteousness  for  Jus- 
tification, and  common  holiness,  and  therefore  had 
the  same  reason,  with  himself,  to  desire  the  "ade- 
quate interpretation"  he  is  looking  for,  w^e  find  the 
very  light  he  furnishes. 

But  what  is  the  interpretation?  Why  "the  robe 
of  righteousness"  in  those  strong  passages,  means 
(says  Mr.  N.)  "the  inward  presence  of  Christ,  minis- 


31 


'See  71,  of  Tracts,  p.  12  <fe  13. 


242 


tered  to  us  hy  the  Holy  Ghost. Then,  to  set  out  this 
inherent  righteousness,  he  goes  to  Adam,  thus : 

"  Whereas  we  have  gained  under  the  Gospel  what  we  lost  in 
Adam,  and  justification  is  a  reversing  of  our  forfeiture,  and  a  robe 
of  righteousness  is  what  Christ  gives,  perchanck  a  robe  is  what 
Adam  lost.  If  so,  what  is  told  us  of  what  he  lost,  will  explain 
what  it  is  we  gain.  Now  the  peculiar  gift  which  Adam  lost  cer- 
tainly seems  to  have  been  a  supernatural  clothing — Christ  clothes  us 
in  God's  sight  with  something  over  and  above  nature;  which  Adam 
forfeited." 

Mr.  N.  then  declares  that  this  ^^supernatural  cloth- 
ing'' of  Adam,  was  not  ^^actual  inherent  holiness^^ 
(the  image  of  God)  but  ''agreeably  with  the  view  of 
Justification  already  taken,  nothing  less  than  the  in- 
ward presence  either  of  the  Divine  Word  or  of  the 
Holy  Ghost."  Of  this  '*he  was  stripped^  hy  si7ining, 
as  of  a  covering,  and  shrank  from  the  sight  of  him- 
self:'' 

Thus  have  we,  in  completeness,  the  Romish  doc- 
trine of  original  sin,  consisting  in  a  mere  ^'privation 
of  original  righteousness,"  instead  of  a  positive 
fection  of  nature;''^  the  Romish  doctrine  of  original 
righteousness  consisting  in  a  supernatural  gift,  super- 
added to  the  holiness  of  the  Image  of  God ;  and  all 
this  for  the  purpose  of  maintaining  Justification  by 
inherent  righteousness,  and  that  vain  distinction  of 
the  Schoolmen,  between  such  righteousness,  as  a  su- 
pernatural gift,  and  what  is  usually  understood  by 
holiness,  or  Sanctification  in  a  sinner's  heart,  as  if 
this  were  not  supernatural  also.  And  thus  have  we, 
in  a  system  of  divinity  which  feels  exceedingly  inju- 


'  Mr.  Newman's  Lectures,  p.  176 — 182.     ^  See  the  Article  on  Original  Sin. 


248 


red  111  being  called  Romish,  a  doctrine  which,  while 
Mr.  Newman  is  propounding  \X  professedly  as  a  rem- 
edy of  what  is  defective  in  the  creed  of  the  Church  of 
Rome,  is  precisely  the  doctrine  which  one  of  his  own 
professedly  standard  writers  declares  "the  Romish 
Church,  especially  since  the  Council  of  Trent,  is 
deeply  engaged  to  maintain'^  and  "all  congregations 
of  Christian  men  out  of  the  Romish  Church  stand 
deeply  engaged  to  deny." 

But  a  little  more  Romish  illumination  may  be  let 
in  here.  Bishop  Burnet  says,  "Those  of  the  Church 
of  Rome,  as  they  believe  that  original  sin  is  quite 
taken  away,  by  Baptism,  so  finding  that  this  corrupt 
disposition  (jHnfection  of  nature''')  still  remains  in 
us,  they  do  from  thence  conclude  that  it  is  no  part  of 
original  sin;  but  that  this  is  the  natural  state  in 
which  man  was  made  at  first,  only  it  is  in  us  now  with- 
out the  restraint  or  bridle  of  supernatural  assistances, 
which  was  given  to  him,  but  lost  by  sin,  and  is  re- 
stored to  us  in  Baptism."^ 

Now  here  w^e  see  Oxford  divinity  again.  Accord- 
ing to  its  system,  Baptism  takes  away,  or  Justifies 
us  from.  Original  Sin.  It  does  this,  by  the  infusion 
of  a  supernatural  gift  of  righteousness,  which  is  the 
restoration  of  what  Adam  lost.  But  this  cannot  be 
the  same  as  the  holiness  of  the  regenerate,  because, 
as  Mr.  N.  says,  that  is  so  imperfect.  Therefore  what 
Adam  lost  could  not  have  been  mere  holiness,  the 
Image  of  God,  in  which  he  was  created,  but  a  super- 
natural grace,  superadded. 

Here  then  we  have  the  concurrence  of  two  emi- 


'  Burnet  on  Art.  ix. 


244 


nent  Protestant  divines,  the  one,  a  writer  whom  our 
Oxford  men  specially  praise,  the  other,  a  writer  w^hom 
they  seem  absolutely  to  hate,  both  setting  down,  as 
characteristic  of  Romanism,  that  precise  doctrine  of 
original  righteousness  and  sin,  to  which  they  are  dri- 
ven by  their  peculiar  views  of  Justification;  and  the 
first  (Jackson)  considering  it  a  feature  of  Romanism 
so  inwrought  into  its  very  system,  that  Romish  di- 
vines, ever  since  the  Council  of  Trent,  have  felt 
deeply  bound  to  maintain  it;  so  utterly  subversive  of 
the  fundamental  doctrine  of  Justification,  that  all  Re- 
formed Churches  "stand  deeply  engaged  to  deny  it;" 
and  so  absolutely  ruinous  that  "  it  would  render  the 
opinion  of  the  Socinians  as  to  the  value  or  eflicacy  of 
Christ's  sufferings  more  tolerable  and  justifiable." 

SIN  AFTER  BAPTISM. 

It  is  well  known  to  be  a  prominent  doctrine  of  the 
Romish  Church,  that  si7i  committed  after  Baptism, 
cannot  be  forgiven,  except  through,  w^hat  they  call, 
''the  Sacrament  of  Penance."  The  doctrine  is  ex- 
pressed as  follows,  by  Gandolphy.  "  As  God  has 
chosen  men  to  be  his  instruments  and  agents  in  puri- 
fying his  creatures  from  original  and  actual  sin,  by 
the  spiritual  regeneration  of  Baptism;  so  has  he 
likewise  commissioned  men,  to  pardon  and  restore 
those  to  grace  who  might  afterwards  relapse.  He 
has  instituted  for  the  latter  a  form  of  repentance,  a 
tribunal  of  contrition  and  penance."  "If  the  grace  of 
Baptism  be  forfeited  by  sin,  the  subsequent  pardon 
and  renewal,  though  gratuitous  on  the  part  of  God, 
are  to  be  accompanied  and  secured  by  the  criminal's 
own  humiliation  and  repentance.    Hence  in  the 


245 


Catholic  (Romish)  Church,  it  is  called  the  Sacra- 
ment of  penance.''''  "No  individual  can  obtain  the 
remission  of  sins  after  baptism  without  submitting  to 
penance  (Sacrament  of  Penance)  cither  in  effect  or 
desire."  "Jesus  Christ  has  instituted  the  Sacrament 
of  Penance  for  the  ordinary  remission  of  all  sin  com- 
mitted after  Baptism."^ 

Now  this  is  consistent  ground.  Sins  before  Bap- 
tism are  remitted  or  taken  away  by  the  infusion  of 
grace  at  Baptism.  But  sin  after  Baptism,  how  shall 
it  be  remitted  ?  The  true  Protestant  says  "  Repent 
and  believe  in  the  Lord  Jesus  Christ."  No,  says 
the  Romanist,  remission  can  come  again  only 
through  some  Sacrament,  as  it  came  at  first.  But 
what  Sacrament  ?  The  Romish  church  invents  one, 
called  Penance,  comprising  contrition,  confession, 
satisfaction  and  ahsolution.  When  the  Priest  says 
"  /  absolve  thee  in  the  name  of  the  Father,'''  6fC.,  then 
sin  after  Baptism  is  remitted. 

Now  it  will  be  made  to  appear  that  Dr.  Pusey  is 
precisely  in  the  difficulty  for  which  this  Sacrament 
of  Penance  was  invented. 

He  too  considers  that  only  in  Baptism,  are  sins 
remitted.  But  what  of  him  who  sins  after  Baptism  ? 
He  hiows  no  way  of  ahsolute  forgiveness  in  this 
life.  "  The  Church  (he  says)  has  no  second  Baptism 
to  give,  and  so  she  cannot  pronounce  him  altogether 
free  from  his  past  sins.  There  are  hut  two  periods  of 
ahsolute  cleansing.,  Baptism  and  the  day  of  Judg- 
ment.^   Now  here  is  the  precise  doctrine  of  the  Ro- 


•  Gandolphy's  Defence,  vol.  iii.  pp.  384 — 391. 
Bishop  of  Oxford,  p.  62. 


2  Dr.  Pusey's  Letter  to 


246 


mish  Church.  But  we  proceed. — Dr.  Pusey  informs 
us  that  there  are  some  points  connected  with  this 
head  on  which  he  and  his  fellows  in  doctrine,  differ 
more  or  less  from  each  other.""  One  is  this — 
Whether,  or  not,  Baptism,  besides  washing  away- 
past  sins,  admits  into  a  state  in  which  for  sins 
henceforth  committed,  Repentance  {qu.  Penance? ) 
stands  in  place  of  a  Sacrament,  so  as  to  ensure  forgive- 
ness without  specific  ordinance ;  or  whether  the  full 
and  explicit  absolution  of  sin  after  Baptism  is  alto- 
gether put  off  till  the  day  of  Judgment.'''^  Grave 

1  But  whatever  the  difference  among  these  gentlemen  on  this  head,  Dr.  Pu- 
sey, who  is  evidently  the  Magister,  the  Master  of  the  Sentences,  and  more 
ready  than  others  to  run  the  system  to  all  its  consequences,  has  taken  good 
care  that  his  doctrine  shall  be  the  doctrine  of  the  Tracts,  and  characterise  the 
school.  He  gets  it  in  wherever  there  is  a  door.  In  the  Tract  on  Purgatory, 
p.  7,  we  read  that  penitents  for  sin  after  Baptism,  "  from  this  time  to  the 
day  of  Judgment  may  be  considered  in  that  double  state  of  which  the  Roman- 
ists speak — their  persons  accepted,  but  certain  sins  uncancelled.  Such  a  state 
is  plainly  revealed  to  us  in  scripture  as  a  real  one,  in  various  passages,  to 
■which  ive  appeal  as  -well  as  the  Romanists^  See  also  p.  32  of  No.  79,  and 
p.  46  of  Tract  on  Reserve,  No.  80.  The  miserable  doctrine  is  defended  and 
re-asserted  in  No.  82,  p.  xxiii.  The  same  appears  in  Dr.  Pusey's  Scriptural 
Views  of  Baptism. 

If  "after  having  been  washed  once  for  all,  in  Christ's  blood,  we  again  sin, 
there  is  no  more  such  complete  absolution  in  this  life  :  no  restoration  to  the  same 
state  of  undisturbed  security,  in  which  God  had  by  Baptism  placed  us." 

The  difficulty  into  which  the  advocates  of  this  system  are  thrown,  as  to  the 
forgiveness  of  post-baptismal  sins,  'when  they  dare  not  be  consistent,  as  Dr. 
Pusey  is,  with  their  principles,  is  seen  in  the  following  strant,^e  passage  from 
the  book  of  Dean  (now  Bishop)  Bethell  on  regeneration,  referred  to  by  Dr. 
Pusey  as  a  "  valuable  work,"  and  by  Dr.  Hook  as  "a  standard." — "As  to  those 
persons  who,  after  having  been  baptized  in  a  state  of  hypocricy  and  wilful  sin, 
afterwards  become  true  penitents  and  believers,  I  for  my  part,  entertain  no 
doubt  of  their  forgiveness  and  salvation.  But  by  what  physical  process  they 
are  brought  into  a  state  of  salvation  and  acceptance  with  God,  whether  by 
the  infusion  or  resuscitation  of  the  incorruptible  seed,  or  by  what  other 
mysterious  means,  I  neither  know,  nor  do  I  wish  to  inquire.  It  is  a  case  not 
mentioned  in  the  covenant,  nor  supposed  and  provided  for  in  the  word  of 
Gody    Here  then  is  the  case  of  a  true  penitent  believer,  not  provided  for  in 


247 


questions  indeed  for  Protestant  divines,  with  the 
Articles  and  Homilies  of  the  Church  of  England,  and 
the  Word  of  God  in  their  hands,  to  be  divided  about ! 
Go  and  learn  the  alphabet  of  the  Gospel !  Spell  the 
name  of  Jesus!  (*'He  shall  save  his  people  from 
their  sins").  Behold  the  miserable  perplexity  of  Dr. 
Pusey's  mind  in  the  following  dark  and  doubtful 
questionings.  He  is  trying  to  get  round  the  plain 
meaning  of  our  article  on  this  object  which  says 
''Not  every  deadly  sin  ^  willingly  committed  after 
Baptism  is  unpardonable,  wherefore  they  are  to  he  con- 
demned that  deny  the  place  of  forgiveness  to  such  as 
truly  repent y    On  this  Dr.  Pusey  says 

"  But  who  truly  repent ;  when  a  man  who  has  been  guilty  of  sin  after 
Baptism  may  be  satisfied  that  he  is  truly  repentant  for  it;  whether  and 
to  \chat  degree  he  should  all  his  life  continue  his  repentance  for  it — 
wherein  his  penitence  should  consist ;  whether  continued  repentance 
vfoM  efface  the  traces  of  sin  in  himself ;  whether  he  might  ever  in 
this  life  look  upon  himself  as  restored  to  the  state  in  which  he  had  been, 
had  he  not  committed  it ;  whether  it  affect  the  degree  of  his  future 
bliss,  or  its  effects  be  effaced  by  repentance ;  but  their  extinction  de- 
pend upon  the  continued  greatness  of  his  repentance  ;  whether  cessa- 
tion of  his  active  repentance  (qu.  Penance)  may  not  bring  back  de- 
grees of  the  sin  upon  him;  whether  it  shall  appear  again  in  the  day 
of  Judgment:  these  and  the  like  are  questions  upon  which  the  Ar- 
ticle does  not  speak. 

the  xvord  of  God.  How  a  true  penitent  and  a  believer,  can  be  accepted  of  God 
through  the  merits  of  Christ,  when  he  cannot  be  re-baptized  is  a  mystery 
neither  to  be  understood  nor  enquired  into.  As  he  did  not  receive  Justification 
at  his  Baptism,  how  can  he  ever  get  it,  seeing  Baptism  cannot  be  repeated  ! — 
There  is  the  difficulty — and  one  which  this  system  cannot  solve.  Nothing  need 
show  more  completely  how  the  system  opposes  the  first  principles  of  the  Gospel 
than  that  while  Bishop  Bethel!  cannot  find  it  in  his  heart  to  believe  that  one  of 
true  repentance  and  faith  in  Christ  will  fail  of  salvation,  he  can  find  neverthe- 
less no  explanation  in  his  system  of  horv  such  a  person  can  be  saved,  and  there- 
fore has  to  cut  the  knot  which  he  cannot  untie  I 

1  Bishop  Beveridge,  on  this  Article,  interprets  deadly  si?i"ais  meaning  evert/ 
sin" — "  for  every  sin  (he  says)  is  deadly."    Beveridge  on  the  Articles,  p.  358. 


248 


What!  when  that  Article  expressly  says,  ^^they  are 
to  he  condemned  who  deny  the  place  of  forgiveness,  to 
those  who  truly  repent"  for  such  sin?  But  does  not 
the  Homily  speak  to  such  points,  when  it  says  : 

"We  do  not  without  a  just  cause  detest  and  abhor  the  damnable 
opinion  of  them  which  do  most  wickedly  go  about  to  persuade  the 
simple  and  ignorant  people,  that  ifwe  chance, after  we  be  once  come 
to  God,  and  grafted  into  His  Son,  to  fall  into  some  horrible  sin,  re- 
pentance shall  be  unprofitable  to  us  ;  there  is  no  more  hope  of  recon- 
ciliation, or  to  be  received  again  into  the  favour  and  mercy  of  God." 
"If (after  such  sin)  we  rise  again  by  repentance,  and  with  full  pur- 
pose of  amendment  of  life,  do  flee  unto  the  mercy  of  God,  taking 
sure  hold  thereupon  through  faith  in  his  Son  Jesus  Christ,  there  is 
an  assured  and  infallible  pardon  and  remission  of  the  same,  and 
that  we  shall  be  received  again  into  the  favour  of  our  heavenly 
Father." 

This,  the  Homily  illustrates  by  the  case  of  Peter, 
who  horribly  sinned  after  Baptism,  and  assuredly 
was  pardoned.^  What  havoc  does  this  indignant  de- 
claration of  the  truth  of  the  Gospel  make  amidst 
the  miserable  doubtings  and  questionings  w^e  have 
quoted!  We  cannot  but  feel  indignation  in  every 
vein,  as  we  write.  Allow  this  darkness  about  remis- 
sion of  sin  after  Baptism,  and  we  take  leave  of  all 
the  consolation  in  Christ.  Grant  it !  Then  welcome 
Popery!  We  must  have  all  the  substitutes  Popery  can 
give  us,  in  such  affliction.  One  thing  or  other — the 
Sacrament  of  Penance  for  relief,  or  else  to  be  all  our 
lives,  through  fear  of  death,  subject  to  bondage,  wait- 
ing the  Judgment  to  know  whether  our  Repentance 
and  faith  and  prayers,  have  availed,  to  secure  a 
Justifying  interest  in  Christ. 


>  Homily  of  Repentance,  Part  1.    See  also  Homily  of  Salvation,  Part  1. 


249 


The  reader  is  particularly  requested  to  mark  the 
germs  of  a  full-blown  Romanism,  which  lie  in  almost 
every  one  of  the  above  questions,  waiting  the  spring- 
time, to  bud  and  blossom,  and  expand  into  leaf  and 
branch.  But  ?vho  ttivly  repent  ?'^  When  a  man 
may  he  satisfied  that  he  is  truly  rej^entajif  for  sin 
after  Baptism.  Of  course  this  means  that  there  is  a 
different  Jii7id  of  repentance,  to  be  known  by  differ- 
ent marks,  after  Baptism,  from  that  for  sins  before 
Baptism.  It  means  that  he  w^io  understands  all 
about  repentance  in  the  usual  sense,  may  not  under- 
stand it  when  it  takes  place  after  Baptism.  ^'  Where- 
in his  re2)e?ita?ice  should  consist One  asks  with 
amazement,  what  can  it  consist  in  but  true  sorrow  of 
heart  and  turning  unto  God ;  but  Dr.  Pusey  means 
something  else.  ''Whether,  and  to  what  degree,  he 
should  all  his  life  continue  his  repentance  for  it^ 
What  means  this?  to  what  degree!  With  all  his 
heart,  we  answer,  of  course — let  his  turning  to  God 
be  perpetual.  But  Dr.  Pusey  means  something  else. 
His  eye  is  upon  degrees  and  continuance  of  external 
bodily  penances — what  he  calls  elsewhere  ''the  bitter- 
ness of  the  ancient  medicine.''''  When  men  made 
sacrifices  for  the  good  of  their  souls, — practised  self 
discipline,  accused  and  condemned  themselves, — sought 
to  bring  forth  fruit  worthy  of  'penance,' — and  were 
punished  with  open  penance,  that  their  souls  might  be 
saved  in  the  day  of  the  Lord.''  This  is  the  guide  to  the 
degree  a?id  continuance  of  repentance  after  Baptism. 
A  broken  heart,  with  faith  in  the  blood  of  Christ,  are 
not  enough.  The  grand  question,  in  Dr.  Pusey 's 
sight,  is  how  much,  periance,  as  distinct  from  repent- 
ance, is  necessary  for  pardon.       Whether  one  might 

32 


250 


ever  in  this  life  look  upon  himself  as  restored  to  the  state 
in  rvhich  he  had  heen^  had  he  not  committed  the  sin.^^ 
Compare  this  with  the  precious  language  of  our  Com- 
munion Service,  just  after  we  have  been  confessing, 
and  professing  to  bewail  and  repent  of,  sin  upon  sin, 
after  Baptism.  "Hear  what  comfortable  words  our 
Saviour  Christ  saith  to  all  who  truly  turn  to  him. 
Come  unto  me  all  ye,  &c.,  and  I  will  give  you  rest.  If 
any  man  sin,  we  have  an  advocate  with  the  Fa- 
ther, &c.  Lift  up  your  hearts."  Oh!  calumniated 
Church,  that  one  of  thine  own  children  and  pastors 
should  teach  such  doctrine  for  thine !  But  again — 
''whether  it  (the  sin  repented  of)  affect  the  degree  of 
his  future  bliss,  rvhether  it  shall  appear  again  in  the 
day  of  Judgment,^''  No  leaning  towards  Purgatory 
in  the  other  world,  discoverable  in  these  w^ords !  If 
we  depart  this  life  with  sin  not  entirely  effaced  and 
pardoned — if  it  is  to  meet  us  in  the  day  of  Judgment, 
then  what  can  be  our  hope?  Evidently  nothing  in 
this  life ;  for  the  supposition  is  that  all  here  was  insuffi- 
cient. Nothing  at  the  day  of  Judgment,  for  that  is  the 
day  of  trial,  not  *'a  day  of  salvation,"  when  we  may 
supply  any  deficiencies  in  our  hope.  Nothing  re- 
mains but  the  interval  between  death  and  the  Judg- 
ment. Here,  if  any  where  after  death,  must  the  re- 
maining traces  of  sin  he  effaced.  How  ?  By  the  effi- 
cacy of  purgatorial  discipli7iej  of  course.  Can  any 
eye  help  seeing  what  all  this  means;  what  all  this  is 
driving  at;  what  fruit  such  buds  must  bring?  But 
Dr.  Pusey  is  perfectly  consistent.  He  is  only  follow- 
ing out  their  doctrine  of  Justification  to  its  legitimate 
results.  Justification  is  by  infused  righteousness. 
This  infusion  takes  place  at  Baptism.    Baptism  can- 


•251 


not  be  repeated.  But  sin  after  Baptism  destroys  the 
grace  of  Baptism ;  that  is,  the  justifying  efficacy  of 
the  infused  righteousness.  The  light  is  quenched. 
The  bright  mirror  is  marred.  What  shall  remedy 
the  loss  ?  There  remains  no  Sacrament  for  the  reinfu- 
sion  of  Righteousness.  The  Eucharist  is  only  for  its 
increase  and  brightening ;  and  if  any  say  otherwise, 
they  differ  from  Dr.  Pusey,  and  are  inconsistent  with 
their  own  principles.  The  merits  of  Christ  will  not 
answer,  because  they  are  only  applied  for  Justifica- 
tion, m  Baptis7n.  Faith  will  not  answer,  for  it  is 
''subordinate  to  Baptism,""  and  has  been  killed  by  sin 
after  Baptism.  A  new  Sacrament,  such  as  that  of 
Penance,  or  else  a  purgation  between  death  and 
Judgment,  is  absolutely  necessary  to  such  a  scheme 
"  O  my  soul,  come  not  into  their  secret!"  Who  can 
fail  to  see  in  these  dark  passages,  in  this  shadow  of 
death,  that  very  state  of  mind,  just  that  state  of  de- 
pendance  on  our  own  works  for  Justification,  that 
very  blindness  to  the  fulness  and  glory  of  Christ,  as 
"the  Lord  our  Righteousness,"  from  which  procee- 
ded all  that  "maze"  of  inventions  for  the  putting 
on  of  the  polluted  rags  of  our  own  righteousness, 
"  which  the  Church  of  Rome  doth  cause  her  followers 
to  tread,  when  they  ask  her  the  way  to  Justification." 
The  germs  of  expiatory  penances,  pilgrimages, 
masses,  offerings,  &c. ;  yea,  all  the  elements  of  pur- 
gatorial burnings  in  the  future  world,  for  the  souls  of 
those  who  have  sinned  after  their  Baptism,  are  con- 
tained in,  and  scarcely  veiled  under,  those  ominous 
and  melancholy  questionings.  The  mind  that  fully 
.sympathises  with  such  views,  is  penetrated  with  the 
essential  virus  of  Romanism,  and  only  needs,  like 


252 


some  latent  diseases  of  the  body,  an  exciting  cause,  a 
favourable  atmospheric  influence,  to  be  made  to  break 
out,  all  over,  with  a  full  eruption  of  Romanism  in 
active  development.  To  cross  over  to  a  full  belief 
in  the  doctrine  of  Purgatory,  without  Romish  terms 
perhaps,  but  with  Romish  substance,  would  be  but  a 
natural  transition  from  such  a  state. 

Now  we  beg  the  reader  to  compare  the  extract  we 
have  made  from  Dr.  Pusey,  as  to  the  kind  and  de- 
gree, and  effect,  &c.,  of  the  repentance  for  sin  after 
Baptism,  with  the  following,  from  a  modern  Romish 
writer,  on  the  very  same  subject.  The  ideas  and  the 
language  are  so  much  alike  that  it  really  looks  as  if  a 
Popish  defence  of  Penance  had  furnished  Dr.  Pusey 
with  his  own  ideas  and  words. 

*'  As  Repentance,  according  to  the  Protestant,  is  absolutely  neces- 
sary for  the  sinner  (who  has  sinned  after  Baptism)  to  attain  salvation, 
let  him  say  what  is  the  quality  and  nature  of  this  repentance ;  let 
him  determine  the  degree  in  which  it  will  avail ;  let  him  say  if  the 
interior  moral  act  of  the  soul  is  to  be  accompanied  or  unaccompanied 
by  any  outward  corresponding  act,  (Penance.)  In  short,  let  him 
positively  state  how  much  repentance  is  necessary  to  appease  the 
anger  of  the  Almighty,  otherwise  he  must  find  himself  in  the  awful 
and  singularly  distressing  condition  of  being  left  in  ignorance  of  the 
condition  so  severely  enjoined,  and  which  alone  is  to  entitle  him  to 
the  forgiveness  of  heaven."^ 

How  singular  the  resemblance  of  this  passage  to 
that  of  Dr  Pusey!  It  can  only  be  accounted  for 
by  the  precisely  similar  states  of  mind  of  the  two 
writers.  If  any  thing,  the  Protestant  writes  the 
more  Popishly  of  the  two.  He  is  on  ground  which 
leaves  him  entirely  exposed  to  the  raking  fire  of  the 
next  paragraph  of  the  Romanist,  which  is  as  follows : 


»  Gandolphy's  Defence,  vol.  iii.  pp.  388,  389. 


253 


"  Nothing  can  nnore  evidently  prove  the  divine  superiority  of  the 
Catholic  (Romish)  religion  over  every  other — nothing  more  plainly 
declare  its  high  origin,  than  the  circumstance  of  every  point  being 
definitely  settled  therein,  concerning  this  interesting  question  of  sal- 
vation. While  the  reformer  is  ever  insecure,  the  Catholic  is  enjoying 
a  moral  repose — and  while  the  repenting  Protestant  {of  the  Oxford 
School)  looks  back  upon  his  crimes  with  anxious  trepidation,  un- 
certain of  what  is  demanded  of  him  by  the  justice  of  God,  the  peni- 
tent Catholic  (Romanist)  retraces  his  past  sins  in  the  sorrow  of  his 
heart,  but  in  humble  composure  of  mind,  builds  his  hope  of  forgive- 
ness on  the  solid  ground  of  a  faithful  compliance  with  every  condi- 
tion, that  Jesus  Christ  and  his  Church  have  specially  marked  out  for 
him; — I  mean  contrition  before  God — co)fession  before  his  minis- 
ter^ and  satisfaction  imposed  by  his  Church.^^^ 

If  the  coincidence  between  the  questions  of  Dr. 
Pusey,  and  those  of  Father  Gandolphy,  as  to  the  na- 
ture, amount,  and  effects  of  repentance  for  sin  after 
Baptism,  seem  singular,  perhaps  it  may  be  explained 
by  the  supposition  that  both  minds  were  formed  as 
to  this  subject,  under  the  same  INIaster.  Whoever 
will  consult  the  Schoolmen  will  find  precisely  the 
questions  both  have  asked — and  not  only  so,  but  an- 
swered precisely  as  it  is  manifest  both  would  answer 
them,  except  as  Dr.  P.  flies  only  to  a  purgation  after 
death,  and  the  Schoolmen  adds  the  Sacrament  of  Pe- 
nance. A  few  specimens  of  questions  proposed  and 
ans^vered  at  large  in  the  Summa  of  Aquinas,  the 
great  thesaurus  of  the  divinity  of  Trent,  placed  in 
contrast  with  those  of  Dr.  Pusey,  will  show  whither 
the  latter  has  been  seekinor  for  aid. 

Dr.  Pusey  asks,  "whether  a  man  should  all  his  life 
continue  his  repentance"  for  sin  after  Baptism — 
whether  cessation  of  his  active  repentance  (Pen- 


»  Gandolphy,  iii.  p.  389,  390. 


254 


ance)  may  not  bring  back  degrees  of  the  sin  upon 
him."  Aquinas  asks,  Utrum  tola  licec  vita  sit  contri- 
tionis  tempus.  Whether  the  whole  of  this  life  is  the 
time  for  such  repentance. 

Whoever  understands  the  Gospel,  as  to  the  nature 
of  godly  sorrow,  will  say  ijes  ;  we  are  to  be  penitents, 
of  a  contrite  heart,  for  all  sin,  unto  death.  But  the 
answer  is  not  so  easy  to  those  who  make  Dr.  Pusey's 
distinction  between  active  Repentance  and  passive — 
the  former  meaning  the  doing  of  penance^  for  the  re- 
mission of  sins. 

Again  Dr.  P.  asks :  whether  he  who  truly  repents 
for  sin  after  Baptism  "be  altogether  pardoned;  or 
whether  only  so  long  as  he  continue  in  a  state  of 
penitence."  Aquinas  also  asks :  Utrum  peccata  di- 
missa  redeant  per  sequens  peccatim.  Whether  sins 
remitted  may  return  by  subsequent  sin — which  is 
the  same  thing  as  to  ask  whether  they  be  alto- 
gether remitted.  Dupin  cites  ''the  Master  of  the 
Sentences"  as  treating  the  same  question;  vol.  ix. 
p.  198. 

Again,  Dr.  Pusey  asks:  '* Whether  continued  re- 
pentance would  efface  the  traces  of  sin  in  himself." 
Aquinas — Utrum  remissa  culpa  mortali,  tollantur 
omnes  reliqiiice  peccati — whether  when  the  guilt  of 
mortal  sin  is  remitted,  all  traces  of  the  sin  are 
effaced. 

Again  Dr.  Pusey — "  Whether  one  might  ever  in 
this  life  look  upon  himself  as  restored  to  the  state  in 
which  he  had  been,  had  he  not  committed  it?"  Aqui- 
nas—  Utrum  post  pcenitentiam  resurgat  homo  in  equa- 
li  virtute ;  Whether  after  Penance,  the  man  attains 
the  same  virtue  he  had  before — Utrum  per  pceniten- 


255 


tiam  restituitur  homo  in  pristinam  dignitatem — whe- 
ther after  Penance  a  man  is  restored  to  his  former 
dignity. 

Again,  in  Tract  No.  76,  it  is  stated  to  be  a  question 
among  the  Oxford  writers  whether  "  the  change  in 
the  soul  made  by  Baptism  is  indelible  for  good  or 
for  evil."  Aquinas  asks,  Utrum  character  insit  ani- 
mce  indelihiliter .  What  is  here  called  character^  and 
which  is  conferred  only  in  Baptism,  according  to 
Romanism,  is  in  anima  sicut  ciucedam  virtus  instru- 
mentalis  et  importat  quandam  potentiam  spiritualem. 
The  questions  of  the  Tract  and  the  Schoolman  are 
precisely  alike. 

Again,  Dr.  Pusey — ''Whether  it  (Sin  after  Bap- 
tism repented  of)  affect  the  degree  of  his  future 
bliss — whether  it  shall  appear  again  in  the  day  of 
Judgment."  Aquinas — Utriim  remissa  culpa  per 
pcenitentiam  remaneat  reatits  pance — whether  the 
guilt  being  remitted,  by  Penance,  there  remains 
any  liability  to  penalty.  The  answer  of  Aquinas  to 
this,  is  that  although  by  virtue  of  Penance,  the 
guilt  is  remitted,  and  with  it  eternal  punishment, 
nevertheless  there  may  remain  a  liability  to  punish- 
ment of  a  temporal  kind — in  other  words  purgatory. 
And  this  is  precisely  that  ''double  state,"  viz:  that 
of  one's  person  being  "  accepted,"  but  his  having  sins 
yet  "-uncancelled''  after  death,  till  the  day  of  Judg- 
ment in  which.  Dr.  Pusey  says,  the  divinity  of  Ox- 
ford agrees  with  the  Romanists,  and  which,  he  as- 
serts, is  plainly  revealed  in  the  Scriptures.' 

Blessed  be  God,  who  has  spared  us  such  bondage, 


'  Tract  No.  79,  p.  7. 


256 


and  showed  unto  us  a  more  excellent  way — even 
that  '^new  and  living  way/'  whereby  we  have 
"  boldness  of  access"  to  his  mercy- seat,  and  are 
brought  nigh  by  the  blood  of  Christ,"  and  are  com- 
manded to  draw  near  with  full  assurance  of  faith," 
and  to  rejoice  in  the  certainty  that  "  the  blood  of  Je- 
sus Christ  cleanseth  us  from  all  sin,"  so  that  noth- 
ing can  separate  us  from  his  love. 

The  following  extract  from  the  late  charge  of  the 
Bishop  of  Exeter,  derives  very  serious  additional 
weight  from  all  that  we  have  now  seen  as  to  the  Ox- 
ford doctrine,  of  which  we  have  been  writing. 

I  lament  to  see  the  reason  for  which  they  (the 
Oxford  divines)  enumerate  the  necessity  of  confession 
in  their  list  of  those  ^practical  grievances'!  to  which 
Christians  are  exposed  in  the  Romish  communion, 
viz :  because  without  it  no  one  can  he  partaker  of  the 
Holy  Communion r  The  Bishop  means  that  it  is  a 
lamentation  that  they  could  give  no  stronger  reason 
against  that  abomination  of  desolation,"  Auricular 
Confession.    But  he  proceeds  as  follows  : 

"They  thus  seem  studiously  to  decline  including  in  the  same  list 
the  pretended  Sacrament  of  Penance  generally;  (of  which  confes- 
sion is  but  a  part;)  though  Penance,  as  taught  by  the  Church  of 
Rome,  is  the  greatest,  because  the  most  soul-destroying,  of  all  those 
*  grievances' — we  might  rather  say,  the  foulest  perversion  of  God's 
saving  Truth,  which  the  cunning  of  Satan  ever  put  into  the  heart  of 
man  to  conceive.  For  this  unhallov/ed  device,  by  abusing  the  gra- 
cious promise  of  Christ  given  to  the  Church,  in  his  Apostles,  by 
making  the  Absolution  of  the  Priest  not  only  effectual,  but  also  ne- 
cessary, for  the  pardon  of  all  sin  committed  after  Baptism — while  it 
bows  the  souls  and  consciences  of  the  people,  to  a  state  of  slavish 
fear  of  the  Priest,  practically  releases  them  from  all  other  fear,  and 
gives  the  rein  to  every  corrupt  affection  of  unregenerate  nature. 
Yet,  this  is  not,   it  seems,  one  of  '  the  subjects,  which,'  in  the 


257 

opinion  of  these  writers,  *  may  be  profitably  brought  into  contro- 
versy with  Romanists  of  the  present  day.'  " 

MORTAL  AND  VENIAL  SINS. 

It  is  a  well  known  doctrine  of  the  Romish  Church 
that  sins  are  divisible  into  Mortal  and  Venial.  Mor- 
tal sins  are  those  "which  are  either  done  willingly, 
or  are  of  any  magnitude.  To  these  eternal  punish- 
ment is  due."^  Venial  Sins  are  such  as  may  not 
properly  be  called  sins;  those  that  may  not  be  consid- 
ered wilful,  and  are  of  no  magnitude,  or  so  light  that 
they  do  not  avail  to  destroy  grace,  or  to  render  one 
worthy  of  death  eternal.  In  the  Romish  Church, 
Sin  after  Baptism,  which  is  ordinarily  remitted  only 
through  the  Sacrament  of  Penance,  means  only  Mor- 
tal Sin.  But  Venial  Sins  need  no  such  appliances. 
Romish  writers  say  that  this  sort  of  sin  ''deserves 
pardon  of  itself" — that  ''venial  sins  are  not  against 
but  besides  the  law — that  while  all  sin  is  a  trans- 
gression of  the  law,  all  transgression  of  the  lav/  is 
not  sin,"  meaning  mortal  or  deadly  sin.  Hence 
Franciscus  a  Victoria  writes  that  a  Bishop's  blessing, 
or  a  Lord's  Prayer,  or  a  knock  on  the  breast,  or  a 
little  holy  water,  is  sufficient  to  remit  venial  sin.^ 

iTractNo.  71. 

2  Aquinas  considers  venial  sins  to  be  referred  to  in  t  John,  i.  "  If  we  say  we 
have  no  sin,  we  deceive  ourselves,  &c."  This  kind  of  sin,  he  says,  is  remitted 
in  the  Eucharist.  But  not  only  there.  Unus  actus  charitatis  potest  delere 
omnia  venialia  sine  actuali  cogitatione  eorum.  One  deed  of  charity  can  blot 
out  all  venial  sins,  even  without  the  least  positive  thought  about  them.  Nor 
only  this,  but  many  other  ways  there  are  to  the  same  remission.  Manifestum 
est  generali  confessionie,  pectoris  tunsione  et  oratione  Dominica,  quatenus  cum 
detestatione  peccati  sunt,  peccata  venialia  remitti ;  episcopali  eliam  benedicti- 
one,  aquae  benedictae  aspersione,  aliisque  hujusmodi  actionibus,  quatenus  cum 
Dei  reverentia  exercentur. 
33 


258 


This  doctrine  has  an  important  connection  with 
that  of  indulgences  and  supererogation ;  but  the  reader 
is  requested  to  note  well  how  directly  and  necessarily 
it  arises  out  of  the  Romish  doctrines  of  Justification 
and  Original  Sin.  For  instance;  Justification  is  the 
infusion  of  righteousness^  by  which  we  are  made  ac- 
ceptable in  the  sight  of  God.  This  infusion  takes 
place  at  Baptism.  Baptism  entirely  takes  away  both 
Original  and  Actual  Sin.  But  it  is  granted  on  all 
hands  that,  in  the  baptized  and  regenerate,  there  re- 
mains, what  the  decree  of  Trent  and  our  ninth 
Article  call,  concupiscence,  (the  lust  of  the  flesh,  the 
*^o;/73^a  tfaf^o?  of  St.  Paul.)  This  our  Article  declares 
''''hath  of  itself  the  nature  of  sin,''''  and  though  there 
is  no  condemnation  for  them  that  believe  and  are 
baptized,"  nevertheless  it  "  deserveth  God's  wrath  and 
damnation."  This  concupiscence  therefore,  in  the 
judgment  of  our  Church,  is  a  mortal  sin,  as  all  sins 
truly  are.  But  the  Chu.rch  of  Rome  cannot  hold 
this,  and  at  the  same  time  hold  that  Justification,  is 
inherent  righteousness,  through  Baptism,  which  she 
says  takes  away  all  original  and  actual  sin ;  for  if  con- 
cupiscence be  a  mortal  sin,  then  is  our  justifying 
righteousness  ruined,  and  our  Baptism  has  not  done 
what  is  ascribed  to  it.  She  must  and  does  not  only 
maintain  that  the  guilt  of  original  sin,  is  all  taken 
away  in  Baptism,  but  pronounces,  If  any  one  shall 
assert,  that  all  that  which  has  in  it  the  true  and  pro- 
per nature  of  sin,  is  not  taken  away,  let  him  be  ac- 
cursed."^ In  the  regenerate  or  baptized,"  continues 
the  Decree  of  Trent,    there  is  nothing  rvhich  God 


«  Dec.  Trident.  Sess.  5. 


259 


hatesy  They  are  innocent,  immaculate,  pure.* 
But  still  there  remains  this  concupiscence,''  this  lust 
of  the  flesh.  Consequently,  it  cannot  have,  what  our 
Article  declares  it  has,  of  itself,  the  true  and  proper 
nature  of  sin.  It  cannot  be  hateful  to  God.  It  can- 
not be  inconsistent  with  purity  before  Him,  and  with 
the  justifying  virtue  of  inherent  righteousness.  The 
Holy  Synod  of  Trent,  therefore,  decreed  that  this 
concupiscence,  though  sometimes  called  sin  (it  acknow- 
ledged) hy  the  Apostle,  the  Catholic  Church  had  never 
understood  to  be  so  called,  because  truly  ^ndi  properly 
sin  in  the  regenerate,  hut  only  because  it  comes  from 
sin,  and  inclines  to  sin.^'^  Concupiscence,  therefore, 
is  Venial  Sin,  w^hich  a  little  holy  water  or  a  Pater 
Noster,  will  suflice  to  remit.  Thus  the  sufficiency 
of  inherent  riorhteousness  for  Justification,  and  the 
entire  taking  away  of  original  sin,  by  making  concu- 
piscence to  be  no  sin  at  all,  are  preserved. 

But  how  do  they  get  at  the  doctrine  that  concu- 
piscence is  no  sin,  not  even  a  part  of  original  sin  ? 
This  is  answered  by  a  reference  to  what  we  have 
said  of  the  Romish  doctrine  of  original  sin.  Original 
sin  in  the  Church  of  Rome,  is  not,  what  our  Article 
says  it  is,  positive  ''fault  and  corruptions^  or  ^'infec- 
tion of  nature,"  so  that  man  of  his  own  nature  is  in- 
clined to  evil,"  &c. ;  but  it  is  simply  ''  deprivation  of 


»  Dec.  Trident.  Sess.  5. 

"  Venial  Sin,  (says  Aquinas,)  has  not  simply  and  perfectly  the  nature  of  sin, 
but  is  a  sort  of  disposition  towards  sin" — sed  est  quasi  dispositio  ad  illud.  "  It 
causes  properly  no  spot  in  the  soul,  but  impedes  the  actions  of  virtue," — nul- 
1am  proprie  maculam  causat  in  anima,  sed  impedit  actus  virtuium.  **  No  act 
without  the  consent  of  the  reason,  is  a  mortal  sin" — nuilus  actus  sine  consensu 
rationis  est  peccatura  mortale. 


260 


original  righteousness."  But  that  righteousness,  ac- 
cording to  Rome,  was  a  supernatural  grace,  super- 
added to  the  constitution  of  man's  nature,  as  he  was 
the  work  of  God,  and  made  in  God's  Image.  Now, 
if  the  loss  of  that  w^as  original  sin,  then  as  that  loss 
was  only  the  loss  of  what  was  superadded  to  man's 
original  nature,  it  follows  that  original  sin  has  no- 
thin  gto  do  with  any  infection  of  any  thing  essential 
to  man's  original  nature;  so  that  concupiscence,  which 
is  that  infection,  is  not  original  sin,  and  not  being  in 
Romish  divinity  actual  sin,  has  not  properly,  in  any 
way,  the  true  nature  of  sin. 

Then,  since  Justification,  through  Baptism,  is  the 
restoration,  in  the  shape  of  infused  righteousness,  of 
WidX^^ supernatural  grace  "  which  Adam  lost,  it  is  in  no 
way  hindered  or  abridged  or  rendered  imperfect  by 
this  infection  of  nature  remaininor  in  the  regenerate. 

Such  is  the  Romish  doctrine  of  Venial  sins,  and 
its  essential  connection  with  that  of  Justification  and 
Original  Sin.  The  reader  is  now  requested  to  con- 
sider wherein  lies  any  substantial  difference  between 
this  doctrine  and  that  of  Mr.  Newman  and  Dr.  Pusey. 
Precisely,  as  is  taught  in  Romanism,  the  new  di- 
vinity of  Oxford  teaches  that  the  Justifying  righte- 
ousness infused  at  Baptism  takes  aw^ay  all  original 
and  actual  sin.  Nevertheless  it  is  granted  that  there 
does  remain  in  the  unregenerate  and  baptized,  that 
concupiscence  or  lust  of  the  flesh  of  which  speaks  our 
Article  on  Original  Sin.  How  then  is  not  our  inherent 
righteousness  rendered  by  this  insufficient  for  Justi- 
fication ?  How  does  it  appear  that  Baptism,  in  Jus- 
tifying, takes  away  all  our  original  sin?  Of  course 
by  denying  that  such  remnant  is  Original  Sin. 


261 


How?  Why  by  teaching,  as  has  before  been  showed, 
precisely  the  Romish  doctrine,  that  Original  Sin 
consists  only  in  the  loss  of  a  supernatural  Grace ;  oi^^a 
Robe  of  Righteousness  superadded'''  to  man's  original 
nature;  and  that  Justification,  or  Regeneration,  for 
they  are  the  same  thing  in  this  divinity,  is  simply 
the  restoration,  not  of  what  may  have  been  lost  of 
man's  original  nature,  but  only  of  that  Supernatural 
grace.  So  that  we  come  to  this,  that  concupiscence 
not  being  original  sin,  and  certainly  not,  in  the  view 
of  these  divines,  actual  sin,  and  its  existence  not 
being  inconsistent  with  an  inherent  justifying  righte- 
ousness, it  has  not  what  our  Article  says  it  has,  ''of 
itself  the  nature  of  sin^  nor  ''deserves  God's  rvrath  and 
damnation  ;"  but  is  only  what  the  Church  of  Rome 
has  pronounced  concerning  it,  viz:  though  some- 
times called  sin  by  the  Apostle,  it  is  not  sin  ti^uly 
and  properly,  but  only  because,  ex  peccato  est,  et  ad 
peccatum  inclinat}  it  comes  of  sin,  and  inclines  to 
sin."    In  other  words,  it  is  Venial  Sin. 

Now  let  us  show  this  from  some  passages  of  Mr 
Newman.  "Baptized  persons  do  not  so  put  on  Christ 
as  to  he  forthwith  altogether  different  men  from  what 
they  ivere  before'''^  This  can  only  mean,  what  our 
Article  says,  that  'Hhis  infection  of  nature  (or  concu- 
piscence) doth  remain  even  in  them  that  are  Regene- 
rate;" in  other  words,  that  the  change  in  Baptism 
is  not  the  entire  putting  off  of  "  the  old  man''  the  un- 
regenerate,  the  carnal  man.  But  still  Baptism  does 
take  away  all  original  sin.  Consequently,  to  retain 
any  portion  of  our  carnal  and  unrenewed  nature,  is  not 


•Newman's  Lectures,  p.  177. 


262 


to  retain  any  original  sin.  In  other  words,  this  rem- 
nant of  the  carnal  man  is  only  impropeiiij  sin — or,  as 
Rome  says,  non  hahet  veram  et  propriam  rationem 
peccati.  It  needs  not  Justification;  it  is  therefore 
not  Mortal,  but  Venial.^ 

Now  see  how  entirely  Dr.  Pusey's  doctrine  of  Sin 
after  Baptism  confirms  all  this. 


1  In  one  very  important  sense,  it  is  true  that  from  him  who  believeth  in  Jesus, 
all  Original  and  Actual  Sin  is  taken  away.  Bat  the  wide  difference  between 
what  the  Author  holds  to  be  the  truth  of  God,  on  this  subject,  and  that  taught 
above,  is  that,  in  the  view  of  the  Oxford  divines  and  the  Romish,  both  descrip- 
tions of  sin  are  taken  away  by  the  infusion  of  a  substance  of  righteousness  ; 
which  is  equivalent  to  saying  that  they  are  taken  away  by  a  righteousness, 
which,  because  it  is  in  us,  is  our  oiun  righteousness,  as  much  as  our  souls  are 
our  own.  But  on  the  other  hand,  in  the  view  of  the  writer,  and  of  what,  he 
will  have  no  difficulty  in  shewing,  is  the  plain  doctrine  of  our  Protestant 
Church,  they  are  taken  away  by  the  mere  imputation  of  the  external  righteous- 
ness of  Christ,  fulfilling  the  law  and  paying  its  penalty  for  us,  that  righteousness 
being  simply  accounted  unto  us,  through  the  instrumental  agency  of  our  faith, 
In  the  former  case,  the  taking  away  of  sin  has  reference  to  its  indwelling ;  in 
the  latter  to  its  condemnation.  The  former  is  a  moral  change  of  personal  cha- 
racter ;  the  latter  is  forensically  a  change  of  relative  state.  In  the  one  case,  there 
is  no  direct  reference  to  the  Saviour;  the  cross  is  almost  out  of  sight.  The 
righteousness  of  Christ,  consisting  in  his  obedience  and  death,  as  Mediator,  has 
no  part  nor  lot  therein.  In  the  other,  Christ  is  all ;  his  cross,  the  only  object  ; 
his  Mediatorial  righteousness,  wrought  out  by  his  obedience,  finished  on  the 
cross,  apprehended  by  faith  and  imputed  to  the  believer  for  .Justification,  is  the 
only  hope.  With  the  latter  view,  there  is  no  inconsistency  in  the  fact  that  the 
moral  nature  of  Original  Sin,  the  infection,  the  concupiscence  of  which  our  Ar- 
ticle speaks,  should  remain,  even  in  the'Regenerate  and  Justified,  (though  its 
power  must  be  broken,  and  daily  it  is  becoming  weaker,  through  the  progres- 
sive increase  of  personal  holiness,)  because,  while  Sanctification  is  always  and 
essentially  the  companion  of  Justification,  it  is  not  Justification.  The  one  is 
inherent,  but  not  perfect.  The  other  is  perfect,  but  not  inherent.  The  one  is 
in  us  ;  the  other,  in  Christ  "  our  Righteousness."  But  with  the  other  view,  the 
remaining  of  that  infection  is  incompatible,  because  it  has  the  nature  of  sin, 
and  therefore  conflicts  essentially  with  the  justifying  efficacy  of  our  inherent 
righteousness — so  that  in  Oxford,  as  in  Romish  divinity,  its  having  the  nature 
of  sin  must  be  denied,  and  to  this  end,  the  nature  of  Original  Sin  must  be 
changed. 


263 


He  says  "the  Church  has  no  second  Baptism  to 
give,  and  therefore  cannot  pronounce  the  jjerson  who 
has  sinned  after  Baptism  altogether  free  from  his  past 
sins.''^  But  he  decides  this  once  for  all  by  saying, 
"  there  are  hut  two  periods  of  absolute  cleansing — 
Bapitism  and  the  day  of  Judgment .''^ 

Now  let  the  reader  consider,  that  in  a  country 
such  as  England,  where  Infant  Baptism  is  almost 
universal,  there  are  hundreds,  and  hundreds  of  thou- 
sands of  persons  who  have  been  baptized,  and  who 
have  never  since  professed  to  be  sincere  followers 
of  Christ,  but  have  been  living  ever  since  their  in- 
fancy in  sin.  Does  Dr.  Pusey  mean  that  there  is  no 
way  for  the  pardon,  on  repentance,  of  the  post-bap- 
tismal sins  of  any  of  these,  until  the  day  of  Judg- 
ment ?  How,  then,  when  they  repent  and  come  to 
be  confirmed,  can  the  Bishop  say  over  them  that 
prayer  which  begins,  "Almighty  God  who  has  vouch- 
safed to  regenerate  these  thy  servants,  &c.,  and  hast 
given  unto  them  forgiveness  of  all  their  sins?''  But 
again ;  We  open  our  Morning  and  Evening  Ser- 
vice with  the  words — "  If  we  say  that  we  have  no  sin 
we  deceive  our  selves, S^c. — We  then  fall  down  and 
confess  that  "  We  have  erred  and  strayed  like  lost 
sheep.'"  The  Bible  says  "  There  is  not  a  just  man  on 
earth  that  doeth  good  and  sinneth  not.  Our  fifteenth 
Article,  on  "  Christ  alone,  without  sin,"  says  "all  we, 
although  baptized  and  born  again  in  Christ  yet  offend 
in  many  things :  and  if  we  say  we  have  no  sin,  we 
deceive  ourselves  and  the  truth  is  not  in  us."  Now 
is  it  credible  that,  when  Oxfordmen  thus  speak,  they 


»  Letter,  p.  62. 


2  P.  62. 


264 


mean  to  say  that  every  man  (for  all  have  sinned  af- 
ter Baptism)  is  beyond  Justification,  till  the  day  of 
Judgment?  Incredible!  Certainly  not!  What  then? 
Why,  when  they  speak  of  sin  after  Baptism,  tViey 
mean  not  such  sins  as  are  thus  confessed,  but  mor- 
tal sins.  Hence  such  as  the  Christian  daily  confes- 
ses are  venial  sins.  Here  then  is  the  precise  conclu- 
sion we  have  been  aiming  at;  viz.  Mortal  sins,  as  dis- 
tinguished from  sins  venial,  so  that  although  the  sins 
of  the  Christian's  daily  course  are  expressly  called 
sins  by  the  Scriptures,  by  the  Church,  by  her  holi- 
est divines,  yet  so  little  do  they  seem  to  Dr.  Pusey 
to  have  the  true  and  proper  nature  of  sin,''^  that 
when  he  uses  the  expression  Sin  after  Baptism,^^ 
he  does  not  mean  to  include  them  therein,  and  does 
not  think  it  worth  while  to  hint  that  they  exist. 

But  when  the  Homilies  of  our  Church  speak  of 
Sin  after  Baptism,  they  mean  no  distinction  between 
sins  mortal  and  venial.  When  our  xxi.  Article 
speaks  of  deadly  sin  after  Baptism,  it  means  no 
such  distinction.  Bishop  Beveridge  interpreting 
its  language,  says  the  expression  "  every  deadly  sin^^ 
in  the  Article  means  every  sin,  for  every  sin  is  dead- 
ly Bishop  Hall  says  "  some  offences  are  more  hei- 
nous than  others,  yet  all,  in  the  malignity  of  their 
nature,  are  deadly.  If  we  have  respect  unto  the  in- 
finite mercy  of  God,  and  to  the  object  of  his  mercy, 
the  penitent  and  faithful  heart,  there  is  no  sin  which 
is  not  venial ;  but  in  respect  to  the  disorder,  there  is 
no  sin  which  is  not  worthy  of  eternal  death.''^^ 


1  Beveridge  on  the  Articles. 

2  Bishop  Hall's  Works,  ix.  p.  57.    The  Bishop  of  Exeter  takes  a  similar 


265 


There  is,  indeed,  no  condemnation  to  them  that 
are  in  Christ  Jesus;  but  it  is  not  because  they  do  not 
sin;  nor  because  their  sin  is  not  of  its  own  nature 
deadly ;  but  simply  because  they  are  '  in  Christ 
Jesus,'  and  are  'justified  by  faith.'  That  applica- 
tion by  faith  to  the  justifying  righteousness  of  Christ, 
is  just  as  necessary  to  the  taking-  away  of  the  one  sin 
of  the  holiest  man  on  earth,  as  of  the  million  sins  of 
the  most  unholy.  We  glory,  not  that  we  have  not 
sinned  after  our  Baptism,  but,  confessing  that  we 
have  sinned  continually,  we  '  glory  only  in  the  cross 
of  our  Lord  Jesus  Christ,'  and  '  believing  in  him, 
we  rejoice  in  hope  of  the  glory  of  God.' " 

We  have  now  exhibited  ramifications  of  Romanism, 
from  the  Romish  doctrine  of  Justification,  which  may 
be  proved  to  be  actually  grown  out  already.  We 
now  proceed  to  show  tendencies  of  no  doubtful  char- 
acter, towards  other  and  more  overt  developments; 
huds  getting  ready  to  burst  into  branches. 

PURGATORY. 

The  decree  of  the  Council  of  Trent  on  this  subject 
determines  : 


view  of  the  language  of  the  Oxford  writers,  with  that  we  have  now  exhibited, 
"  Nor  may  we  forget  (he  says  in  his  late  Charge)  the  tendency  of  such  lan- 
guage to  encourage  the  pernicious  and  perilous  habit  of  distinguishing  between 
such  sins  as  may  destroy  our  state  of  grace,  and  such  as  we  may  think  still 
leave  that  state  secure.  Let  it  never  be  absent  from  our  minds,  that  every  wil- 
ful sin  is  deadly — and  let  us  beware  of  hardening  our  own  hearts,  and  corrupt- 
ing the  hearts  of  our  brethren — by  whispering  to  ourselves  or  them  -which  sin 
is  more  or  less  deadly  than  others.  That  which  we  may  deem  the  least  will  be 
deadly  enough,  if  unrepented,  to  work  our  perdition  : — those  which  we  deem 
the  most  deadly,  will,  if  repented,  hare  been  thoroughly  washed  away  in  the 
blood  of  our  Redeemer." 
34 


266 


"  That  there  is  a  Purgatory,  and  that  souls  there  detained  are 
aided  by  the  suffrages  of  the  living,  and  above  all,  by  the  acceptable 
sacrifice  of  the  Altar."  Bishops  are  enjoined  to  provide  that  the 
suffrages  of  the  believers  living,  that  is,  the  sacrifices  of  masses, 
prayers,  alms,  and  other  works  of  piety,  which  believers  living  are 
wont  to  perform  for  believers  dead,  be  performed  according  to  the 
rules  of  the  Church,  piously  and  religiously,  &c — Session  25. 

Now,  of  this  dire  Romish  corruption,  as  expressed 
in  the  above  very  words,  do  the  Oxford  writers,  in 
Tract  No.  79,  on  Purgatory  say : 

Taken  in  the  mere  letter,  there  is  little  in  it 
against  which  we  shall  be  able  to  sustain  formal  ob- 
jections." p.  516,  vol.  iii.  Am.  Ed. 

This  is  consistent.  The  Oxford  system  must  ad- 
mit as  much.  And  here  follows  the  reason  in  its  own 
words :  The  Roman  Church  holds  that  the  great 
majority  of  Christians  die  in  God's  favour,  yet  more 
or  less  under  the  bond  of  their  sins.  And  so  far 
(says  the  Tract)  we  may  unhesitatingly  allow  to 
them,  or  rather  we  ourselves  hold  the  same,  if  we  hold 
that  after  Baptism,  there  is  no  plenary  pardon  of  sins 
in  this  life  to  the  sinner,  however  penitent,  such  as  in 
Baptism  was  once  vouchsafed  to  him,"  p.  517. 

Now  the  only  difference  pretended  to  between  the 
Oxford  and  Romish  doctrine,  is  that  while  both 
maintain  a  purification  or  purgation  for  believers 
from  sin,  or  purgatory,  in  the  future  world,  the  Ro- 
manist makes  a  definite  place  for  it,  and  makes  that 
place  to  be  one  of  pain,  and  the  pain  to  be  meted  out 

in  a  certain  fixed  proportion,"  p.  518,  so  that  ''every 
sin  of  a  certain  kind  has  a  definite  penalty  or  price;" 
while  the  Oxfordist  contents  himself  with  saying 
that  it  is  a  purification  from  sin,  not  determining,  but 
not  denying,  that  there  is  pain  in,  and  a  place  for,  it, 


267 


such  as  Romanists  speak  of.  How  near,  however,  the 
Oxfordist  approximates  to  his  neighbour  of  Rome, 
may  be  judged  from  the  following  comment  of  the 
Tract  upon  1  Cor.  iii.  12,  15.     If  any  build,"  &c. 

"  Now  It  would  seem  plain,  that  in  this  passage,  the  searching 
process  of  final  Judgment,  essaying  our  works  of  righteousness,  is 
described  by  the  word^re.  Not  that  we  may  presume  to  limit  the 
word  fire  to  that  meaning,  or  on  the  other  hand  to  say  it  is  a  merely 
Jigurative  expression,  denoting  judgment ;  which  seems  a  stretching 
somewhat  beyond  our  measure.  Doubtless  there  is  a  mystery  in 
the  word  j^re,  as  there  is  a  mystery  in  the  words  day  of  Judgment, 
Yet  it  any  how  has  reference  to  the  instrument  or  process  of  judg- 
ment. And  in  this  way  the  Fathers  seem  to  have  understood  the 
passage ;  referring  it  to  the  last  judgment,  as  Scripture  does,  but  at 
the  same  time  religiously  retaining  the  use  of  the  word  Jire,  as  not 
affecting  to  interpret  and  dispense  with  what  seems  some  mysterious 
economy,  lest  they  should  be  wiser  than  what  is  written."  p.  538. 

The  Church  of  Rome  could  not  desire  a  publica- 
tion better  suited  to  advance  the  doctrine  of  Purga- 
tory, in  these  days,  a  better  "  Tract  for  the  Times,*' 
going  just  as  far  as  would  be  expedient,  under  the 
circumstances,  than  Tract  No.  79,  from  which  the 
above  extracts  are  taken. 

Connecting  all  this  with  what  has  before  been 
shown  under  the  head  of  Sin  after  Baptism,  one 
would  suppose  that  the  flames  of  Purgatory  could 
hardly  be  prevented  from  soon  bursting  out  in  open 
day,  from  the  "  wood,  hay,  and  stubble"  of  Oxfordism, 
seeing  that  it  has  such  a  preparatory  funeral-pile  of 
combustibles.  Mr.  Newman  began  to  prepare  the 
public  mind  for  such  maturer  developments,  when  in 
his  Parochial  Sermons,  he  wrote  as  follows : 

'*  Who  can  tell,  but  in  God's  mercy,  the  time  of  waiting  between 
death  and  Christ's  coming,  may  be  profitable  to  those  who  have 
been  his  true  servants  here,  as  a  time  of  maturing  that  fruit  of  grace, 


268 


but  partly  formed  in  them  in  this  life  ;  a  school  time  of  contem- 
plation, as  this  world  is  of  discipline,  of  active  service.  Such  surely 
is  the  force  of  the  Apostle's  words,  that  He  that  hath  begun  a  good 
work  in  you,  will  perform  it,  until  the  day  of  Christ — not  stopping 
at  death,  but  carrying  it  into  the  Resurrection, — as  if  the  interval 
between  death  and  His  coming,  was  by  no  means  to  be  omitted  in 
the  process  of  our  preparation  for  heaven,"  pp.  411,  412. 

PRAYERS  FOR  THE  DEAD. 

We  have  seen,  that  in  the  injunction  of  the  Trent 
decree,  concerning  *'the  suffrages  of  the  living,  such 
as  sacrifices,  masses,  prayers,  alms,  and  other  works 
of  piety,  w^hich  the  living  (in  the  Church  of  Rome) 
are  wont  to  perform  for  believers  dead,"  "there  is 
little  in  the  letter^^  ao^ainst  which  Oxford ists  think 
themselves  "  able  to  sustain  a  formal  objection." 

Hence,  Mr.  Newman  likens  the  intercession  of  the 
Christian,  to  that  of  Christ,  and  calls  it  a  propitiation. 

"  The  Christian  is  plainly  in  his  fitting  place  when  he  intercedes. 
He  is  made  after  the  pattern  of  Christ.  He  is  what  Christ  is* 
Christ  intercedes  above,  and  he  intercedes  below.''^  Again,  speak- 
ing of  those  whom  infirmity  prevents  from  attending  on  public  wor- 
ship, he  asks,  *'  shall  not  their  prayers,  unite  in  one  before  the 
Mercy  Seat,  sprinkled  with  the  atoning  blood,  as  a  pure  offering  of 
incense  unto  the  Father,  and  a  propitiation  both  for  the  world  of 
sinners,  and  for  his  purchased  Church."* 

But  the  following  from  the  late  Charge  of  the 
Bishop  of  Exeter,  will  answer  on  this  head  of  fast- 
developing  Romanism. 

*'  1  lament  the  encouragement  given  by  the  same  writers  to  the 
dangerous  practice  of  prayer  for  the  dead.  They  disclaim,  indeed, 
the  intention  of  giving  such  encouragement,  and  I  doubt  not  the  sin- 
cerity of  their  disclaimer.    But  to  state  that  this  practice  '  is  a  mat- 


'  Parochial  Sermone,  No.  xxi. 


269 


ter  of  sacred  consolation  to  those  who  feel  themselves  justified  in  en- 
tertaining it,' — (and  all,  they  seem  to  suggest,  may  'feel  themselves 
justified,'  for  it  is  '  warranted  by  the  early  Church,') — to  say,  further, 
that  it  is*  a  solemn  privilege  to  the  mourner' — '  a  dictate  of  human 
nature' — nay,  that  it  *  may  be  implanted  by  the  God  of  Nature,  may 
be  the  voice  of  God  within  us:' — to  say  all  this,  is  surely  an  'en- 
couragement' of  the  practice  so  characterized,  which  is  very  feebly 
counterbalanced  by  their  admitting  that  *  our  Church  does  not  en- 
courage it' — by  their  abstaining  from  in  'any  way  inculcating  it' — 
or  even  by  their  thinking  '  it  expedient  to  bring  forward  such  a  topic 
in  public  discussion. 

"  Nor  do  I  assent  to  their  opinion,  that  *  our  Church  does  not  dis- 
courage' prayer  for  the  dead  ;  on  the  contrary,  if,  as  they  admit,  the 
Church,  having  at  first  adopted  such  prayer,  in  the  general  words  in 
which  it  was  used  in  the  ancient  Liturgies,  afterwards  '  for  the  safety 
of  her  children  relinquished  the  practice,'  even  in  this  sober  and 
harmless  form,  '  in  consequence  of  abuses  connected  with  it  in  the 
Romish  system' — abuses,  of  the  least  of  which,  she  says,  that  they 
are  'grounded  upon  no  warranty  of  Scripture,  but  rather  repugnant 
to  the  Word  of  God;'  while  of  others  she  declares,  that  they  'were 
blasphemous  fables,  and  dangerous  deceits;" — 1  can  hardly  propose 
to  myself  any  more  decisive  mode  of  discouraging  a  practice,  which, 
in  itself,  could  not  be  condemned  as  absolutely  contrary  to  God's 
word. 

"  I  must  go  further :  I  must  add,  and  I  do  so  with  unfeigned  respect 
for  the  integrity  and  sincerity  of  these  writers,  as  well  as  for  their 
eminent  ability  and  learning,  that  I  cannot  easily  reconcile  it  with 
Christian  discretion,  for  any  member  of  the  Church  to  speak  with 
so  much  of  favour  of  a  practice  which  was  thus  deliberately,  and  for 
such  grave  reasons,  repudiated  by  the  Church  herself.  Still  less  can 
I  understand  what  justification  can  be  offered  for  his  saying  of  the 
Romanist,  that  in  "  deciding  that  almost  all  souls  undergo  a  painful 
purification  after  death,  by  which  Infectum  eluitur  scelus,  aut  exuri- 
tur  igni,  he  only  follows  '  an  instinct  of  human  nature.^  Surely, 
if  this  be  true,  the  Romanist  is  right  in  his  decision:  for  an  instinct 
of  our  nature  could  have  come  only  from  the  Divine  Author  of  that 
nature — it  must  be  indeed  '  the  voice  of  God  within  us.' 


270 


INVOCATION  OF  SAINTS. 

On  this  head,  w6  are  content  to  let  the  Bishop  of 
Exeter  speak  again : 

Next,  of  *  the  invocation  of  Saints,'  these  writers  say,  that  it 
*  is  a  dangerous  practice,  as  tending  to  give,  often  actually  giving, 
to  creatures  the  honor  and  reliance  due  to  the  Creator  alone.' 

"  But  how  does  the  good  Bishop  Hall,  whom  they  profess  to  follow, 
speak  on  this  same  point?  *  These  foul  superstitions,^  says  he,  *  are 
not  more  heinous  than  new — and  such  as  whereon  we  have  justly 
abhorred  to  take  part  with  the  practisers  of  them.'  Again,  *  This 
doctrine  and  practice  of  the  Romish  Invocation  of  Saints,  both  as 
new  and  erroneous,  against  Scripture  and  reason,  we  have  justly  re- 
jected ;  and  are  thereupon  ejected,  as  unjustly.'  " 

The  Invocations  to  the  Saints  in  the  Roman  and 
Parisian  Breviaries  are  called,  in  a  late  No.  of  the 
British  Critic,  by  the  modest  name  of  ''uncatholic  pe- 
culiarities ^ 

NEW  saints'  days. 

"In  connexion  with  this  subject  (Invocation  of 
Saints)  I  cannot  (says  the  Bishop  of  Exeter)  but  de- 
plore the  rashness  which  has  prompted  them  to  re- 
commend to  private  Christians  the  dedication  of  par- 
ticular days  to  the  Religious  Commemoration  of  de- 
ceased men — and  even  to  furnish  a  special  Service 
in  honor  of  Bishop  Ken,  formed  apparently  on  the 
model  of  an  office  in  the  Breviary  to  a  Romish 
Saint.  Would  it  be  safe  for  the  Church  itself — and 
is  it  becoming  in  private  individuals — to  pronounce 
thus  confidently  on  the  characters  of  deceased  Chris- 
tians— in  other  words,  to  assume  the  gift  of  ^  discern- 
ing of  spirits?'  To  what  must  such  a  practice  be 
expected  to  lead  ?  The  History  of  the  Church  of 
Rome  has  told  us ;  and  the  Fathers  of  our  Reforma- 


271 


tion,  in  compiling  the  Liturgy,  have  marked  their 
sense  of  the  danger  by  rejecting  every  portion  of  the 
Breviary  which  bears  on  such  a  practice,  even  while 
they  adopted  all  that  was  really  sound  and  edifying 
in  it.  Yet  these  writers  scruple  not  to  recommend 
this  very  practice,  thus  deliberately  rejected  by  those 
wise  and  holy  men — and,  strange  to  say,  recommend 
it  as  only  completing  what  our  Fathers  have  begun 
— a  means  of  carrying  out  in  private  the  spirit  and 
principle  of  those  inestimable  forms  of  devotion, 
which  are  contained  in  our  authorized  Prayer  Book." 

A  more  barefaced  insult  to  all  decent  consistency 
with  the  principles  of  the  Church  of  England  was 
never  perpetrated  than  the  Matin  Service  for  Bishop 
Ken's  Day'' — constructed  and  published  by  these 
devout  admirers  of  the  Roman  and  Parisian  Brevia- 
ries— ^'for  social  or  private  devotion."  Who  gave 
them  authority  to  pronounce  upon  the  present  bless- 
edness of  Bishop  Ken?  How  do  they  know  that,  for 
sins  after  Baptism,  he  is  not  now  in  their  Purgatory, 
undergoing  a  purification  from  ^^uncancelled  sins  7^"^ 
Whence  have  they  authority  to  canonize  a  Saint, 
and  call  upon  Christians  to  commemorate  his  holi- 
ness? It  is  but  a  completing,  (they  say)  a  carrying 
out,  in  spirit  and  principle,  what  is  already  begun  in 
our  Prayer  Book.  How  is  this?  Has  the  Prayer 
Book  appropriated  days  or  services  to  the  memory  of 
any  but  a  few  distinguished  personages  jnentioned 
in  the  New  Testament,  and  those  almost  all  Apostles  ? 
But  how  is  it  a  carrying  out  of  the  spirit  of  the 
Prayer  Book,  when  the  model  of  the  Prayer  Book^ 
in  the  commemoration  of  Saints,  is  entirely  deserted, 
and  the  whole  service,  in  w^ords,  and  form,  and  parts, 


272 


and  arrangement,  and  every  single  feature,  is  most 
studiously  adjusted  according  to  the  Romish  Bre- 
viary? Not  a  feature  of  the  mode  of  the  English 
Prayer  Book  appears;  not  one  of  the  Romish  Bre- 
viary is  omitted  in  this  Matin  Service. 

This  edifying  "Restoration;"  this  tentative  effort 
to  raise  up  the  "degraded"  Church  of  England  from 
her  present  place  as  ''a  slave"  at  her  Father's  table, 
and  set  her  in  the  condition  of  the  King's  daugh- 
ter," and  enable  her  to  enjoy  ''the  depth  and  rich- 
ness of  the  ancient  services  of  the  Universal  Church," 
as  contained  in  the  Roman  and  Parisian  Breviaries, 
must  doubtless  be  considered  but  as  a  feeler  to  try 
hov^  far  the  mind  of  English  Protestants  is  able  to 
bear  such  an  increase  of  light  and  privilege.  Should 
it  appear  that  enough  of  the  ancient  spirit  has  re- 
turned, as  no  doubt  it  v^ill  seem  to  these  very  confi- 
dent Restorers,  w^e  shall  certainly  be  favoured  with 
additional  Saints  and  commemoration  days.  For 
v^hy  should  they  stop  at  Bishop  Ken?  Cannot  the 
principle  be  advantageously  carried  out  much  fur- 
ther? If  one  such  Saint  is  good,  would  not  two  be 
better?  Such  is  the  principle  on  which  these  gen- 
tlemen proceed  in  other  things;  the  sign  of  the 
Cross  is  used  in  Baptism,  and  why  not  at  all  other 
times  ?  To  bow  at  the  name  of  Jesus  in  the  Creed 
once^  is  considered  well,  (though  the  present  wTiter 
does  not  think  so)  and  why  not  therefore  at  any 
other  time?  So  reasons  Dr.  Pusey,  to  the  Bishop  of 
Oxford.^  Then  surely,  as  it  is  so  good  to  have  a 
Matin  Service  for  Bishop  Ken,  and  as  the  Non  Ju- 


1  Letter,  pp.  6  &  7. 


273 


rors  included  many  other  men  of  great  repute  at  Ox- 
ford for  Catholic  doctrine  and  spirit,  such  as  San- 
croft,  and  Hickes,  and  Kettlewell,  there  can  be  no 
reason,  but  the  necessity  of  waiting  for  a  proper  pre- 
paredness in  the  ''degraded"  state  of  the  AngUcan 
Church,  to  prevent  the  further  development  of  the 
riches  of  ancient  Catholic  services  in  the  publication 
of  Matins  with  Nocturns  and  Antiphons  for  other 
departed  Saints.  Why  not  for  Mr.  Froude?  ''Let 
Daily  Service  and  the  keeping  of  Holy  Days  become 
universal,"  says  the  British  Critic,  reviewing  the 
latest  Tract.  "The  Saints  and  Angels  will  be  with 
us  at  all  events."^  How  is  this  known?  Are  not 
these  writers  developing  their  system  too  fast  for  the 
times  ? 

TRANSUBSTANTIATION. 

So  much  has  been  written  for  the  purpose  of 
shewing  how  near  this  divinity  approaches  to  the 
Romish  doctrine  of  Transubstantiation  in  its  zeal- 
ous maintenance  that  there  is,  not  only  a  real  pre- 
sence of  the  body  and  blood  of  Christ,  or,  in  other 
words,  of  "Christ  crucified"  in  the  Eucharist,  in  the 
sense  of  effective,  as  distinguished  from  local,  and 
through  the  Holy  Spirit  applying  the  "benefits  of 
his  Passion,"  and  not  in  any  suhstantial  manner, 
which  is  simply  the  sense  of  the  Anglican  Church; 
but  that  there  is  also  ^'•^substantial  presence;"  "an 
immediate,  unseen  Presence  of  that  Body,"  that  we 
need  not  here  exhibit  the  language  of  Oxford  Di- 
vines any  further  on  that  head.  The  tendency  at 
least  of  such  views  cannot  be  mistaken. 


35 


i  No.  54,  p.  256. 


274 


But  connect  with  this  the  anxiety  of  these  writers 
that  the  subject  should  not  be  discussed,  expressed 
as  follows : 

*'  This  consideration  (the  danger  arising  out  of  the  sacredness  of 
the  subject)  will  lead  us  to  put  into  the  back-ground  the  controversy 
about  the  Holy  Eucharist,  which  is  almost  certain  to  lead  to  profane 
and  rationalistic  thoughts  in  the  minds  of  the  many,  and  cannot  well 
be  discussed  in  words  at  all,  without  the  sacrifice  of '  godly  fear,* 
while  it  is  well  nigh  anticipated  by  the  ancient  statements,  and  the 
determinations  of  the  Church  concerning  the  Incarnation.  It  is  true 
that  learned  men,  such  as  Stillingfleet,  have  drawn  lines  of  distinc- 
tion between  the  doctrine  of  transubstantiation,  and  that  high  mys- 
tery; but  the  question  is,  whether  they  are  so  level  to  the  intelli- 
gence of  the  many,  as  to  secure  the  Anglican  disputant  from  foster- 
ing irreverence,  whether  in  himself  or  his  hearers,  if  he  ventures  on 
such  an  argument.  If  transubstantiation  mvst  be  opposed,  it  must 
be  in  another  way;  by  showing,  as  may  well  be  done,  and  as  Stil- 
lingfleet himself  has  done,  that,  in  matter  of  fact,  it  was  not  the  doc- 
trine of  the  early  Church,  but  an  innovation  at  such  or  such  a  time; 
a  line  of  discussion  which  requires  learning  both  to  receive  and  to 
appreciate.^ 


1  Tract  No.  71,  vol.  iii.  of  Am.  Ed.  pp.  7  &  8. 

This  keeping  of  certain  matters  in  the  back-ground,  for  the  purpose  of  pre- 
venting an  inconvenient  discussion,  by  drawing  a  veil  of  awfulness  or  mystery 
over  them,  appears  with  singular  frequency  in  these  writers.  For  example  : 
While  the  writer  in  the  British  Critic,  on  the  Church  Service,  is  saying  all  he 
desires  to  say  on  the  comparative  richness  of  the  ancient  services,  and  those  of 
the  Anglican  Church,  depreciating  the  latter  exceedingly,  he  shuts  up  the  ques- 
tion against  less  reverent  critics  by  this  remark :  "  To  say  that  the  depth  and 
richness  of  the  ancient  services  of  the  Universal  Church  have  no  parallel  in 
modern  times,  were  to  bring  into  a  painful  comparison  what  is  far  too  sacred 
for  human  criticism^ — British  Critic  No.  54,  p.  251.  The  same  writer,  re- 
▼iewing  the  second  part  of  Froude's  Remains,  on  the  subject  of  Rationalism  in 
the  interpretation  of  Scripture,  says  "  the  awful  manner  in  which  the  author 
treats  the  subject  positively  cows  us" — it  is  more  like  that  of  a  spirit  speak- 
ing to  us  in  a  vision,  than  the  tone  of  a  theological  treatise.  All  we  can  summon 
heart  to  do  is  to  take  the  elementary  principles  of  the  essay,  &c.  The  Reviewer 
leaves  the  work  to  those  who  will  "  come  to  it  with  fasting  and  mortification'* 


275 


On  the  above  singular  paragraph,  first  barring  all 
discussion,  and  then,  if  the  subject  must  be  discussed, 
excluding  all  reference  to  Scripture,  and  confining 
us  to  the  dear  type  and  simple  page  of  Tradition,  the 
Bishop  of  Exeter  thus  writes:  "I  lament  to  read 
their  advice  to  those  who  are  contending  for  the  truth 
against  the  Romanists,  that,  '  the  controversy  about 
Transubstantiation  be  kept  in  the  back  ground;  be- 
cause it  cannot  well  be  discussed  in  w^ords  at  all  with- 
out the  sacrifice  of  godly  fear:' — as  if  that  tenet 
w^ere  not  the  abundant  source  of  enormous  practical 
evils,  w^hich  the  faithful  Advocate  of  the  Truth  is 
bound  to  expose:  in  particular,  of  the  extravagant 
exaltation  of  the  Romish  priesthood,  which  seems 
to  have  been  its  primary  object — and,  still  w^orse,  of 
that  which  is  its  legitimate  and  necessary  conse- 
quence, the  adoration  of  the  Sacramental  Bread  and 
Wine,  which  our  Church  denounces  as  '  Idolatry  to 
be  abhorred  of  all  faithful  Christians.'  " 

But  while  discussion  has  thus  been  discouraged, 
advancement  has  been  made  towards  Transubstan- 
tiation. Behold  to  what  length  the  matter  has  come, 
in  the  following  passage  from  the  last  British  Critic. 

"  Is  the  wonder  wrought  at  the  marriage  of  Cana,  a  Miracle,  and 
the  change  which  the  holy  Elements  undergo,  as  consecrated  by  the 
Priest,  and  received  by  the  faithful,  no  Miracle,  simply  because  the 
one  was  perceptible  to  the  natural  eye,  while  the  other  is  discerned 
by  the  spiritual  alone?  Protestants  must  take  care  what  they  are 
about  when  they  speak  at  random  against  the  Church  of  Rome,  lest 


Is  not  this  inconceivably  foolish  1  A  book  on  Rationalism  only  to  be  read 
with  fasting  and  mortification  !  What  next]  How  soon  will  the  memory  of 
Froude  be  enshrined  in  a  Matin  Service,  with  Nocturns  and  Antiphons,  and 
all  the  richness  of  the  Roman  Breviary  ? 


276 


they  pave  the  way  for  things  as  far  worse  than  Popery,  as  irreligion 
is  worse  than  superstition  ;  first  rationalism,  and  next  infidelity."^ 

AGE  OF  MIRACLES. 

It  is  a  well  known  tenet  of  Romanism  that  the  age 
of  miracles  has  never  ceased — that  divers  miracles 
are  wrought  at  tombs  of  Saints,  by  the  touch  of  re- 
lics, &c. — and  that  miracles  are  a  distinguishing 
mark  of  the  true  Church.  Oxford  Divinity  is  dis- 
posed to  claim  thus  much  also. 

The  last  Tract  as  yet  published,  Xo.  56,  asks  why 
we  should  suppose  that  with  respect  to  sudden  and 
extraordinary  cures,  a  broad  line  is  drawn  between 
primitive  and  later  ages?  On  which  the  writer  in 
the  British  Critic  above  quoted  says  : 

"  Surely — it  is  want  of  faith,  which  is  the  only  hindrance  to  these 
gifts  in  later  times.  Why  does  St.  James  apply  to  Elias  the  epithet 
o/xoio'rcW?;^,  except  to  show  that  the  question  turns  upon  difference, 
not  of  Privilege,  but  of  Faith,  or  of  Privilege  as  depending  upon 
Faith?  What  is  the  meaning  of  the  popular  phrase  'the  Age  of 
Miracles'?  Is  not  every  age  of  the  Church  an  Age  of  Miracles?  Is 
there  all  the  difference,  or,  indeed,  any  thing  more  than  the  differ- 
ence between  things  seen  and  unseen  (a  difference  worth  nothing  in 
Faith's  estimate,)  between  healing  the  sick  and  converting  the  soul ; 
raising  man's  natural  body,  and  raising  him  in  Baptism  from  the 
death  of  sin  ?"  ^ 

AURICULAR  CONFESSION. 

How  far  we  may  go  towards  the  Church  of  Rome 
without  ceasing  to  be  sound  Protestants,  in  the  judg- 
ment of  these  divines,  appears,  in  part,  from  the  fol- 
lowing— In  the  British  Critic,  for  January  last,  is  a 
review  of  Brewer's  Court  of  King  James  I.,  by 


1  Br.  Critic,  No.  54,  p.  260. 


2  lb.  pp.  259,  260. 


Goodman,  Bishop  of  Gloucester,  who  was  a  reputed 
Papist  in  the  time  of  Archbishop  Laud.  The  Re- 
viewer praises  the  Editor  for  meeting  Ultra  Protes- 
tants *Svith  their  own  weapons,"  and  says  that  "he 
fairly  argues  that  it  does  not  follow,  it  is  not  necessa- 
ry, it  is  not  certain  that  because  Bishop  Goodman 
said  this,  or  that,  therefore  he  was  other  than  a 
''sound  Protestant' " 

Now  what  did  Bishop  Goodman  say?  The  Re- 
viewer says  he  advocated  Auricular  Confession.  The 
Editor  says,  that  in  his  will  was  the  following  pas- 
sage :  ''  I  do  acknowledge  the  Church  of  Rome  to  he 
the  mother  Church.  And  I  do  verily  believe  that  no 
other  Church  hath  any  salvation  in  it,  hut  only  so  far 
as  it  concurs  with  the  faith  of  the  Church  of  Rome.'' 
Then  in  the  concurrent  judgment  of  these  writers, 
(we  mark  that  of  the  British  Critic,  especially,  because 
of  its  office  as  an  organ  of  Oxfordism,)  a  Bishop  may 
advocate  Auricular  Confession,  as  well  as  record  his 
solemn  belief  that  no  Church  has  salvation  but  so  far 
as  it  concurs  with  the  Church  of  Rome,  and  still  be 
''a  consistent  Protestant."    This  is  a  stride  indeed ! 

EXTREME  UNCTION. 

The  British  Critic  in  the  Review  of  the  late  Tract, 
No.  86,  on  Church  Service,  complains  of  the  author 
because  he  did  not  enter  a  more  decided  protest, 
than  he  has,  against  the  common  Protestant  objec- 
tion to  Extreme  Unction."  The  Reviewer  thinks 
the  testimony  of  Scripture,  unexplained  and  un- 
guarded by  Tradition,  is  in  favour  of  it.  The  only 
reason  against  it  is  that  it  wants  Catholic  consent. 
But  that  may  be  discovered  before  long. 


278 


ANOINTING  AT  BAPTISM  AND  AT  CONFIRMATION. 

The  absence  of  these  in  the  Anglican  Church  is 
called  ''the  loss  of  a  privilege.'''  And  the  keeping  up 
of  the  Coronation-Service  in  which  anointing  is  re- 
tained is  regarded  as  an  indication  of  special  Provi- 
dential care  over  the  Church  "—thus  keeping  up  a 
w^itness  to  both  of  the  Catholic  truths,  of  which  the 
omission  of  anointing  at  Baptism  and  Confirmation 
might  seem  to  betoken  a  disparagement.^ 

INCREASE  OF  SACRAMENTAL  SIGNS  AND  EFFICACIOUS 

SYMBOLS. 

The  cross  is  called  a  Sacramental  sign^^'  and 
memorial  to  the  eyes  of  the  Faithful  ''a  holy  effica' 
cious  Emblem."^  Now  this  is  precisely  the  distin- 
guishing description  given  in  our  Article  on  the  Sa- 
craments of  the  Sacramental  character  of  Baptism 
and  the  Eucharist — Sacraments  be  not  only  badges 
or  tokens  of  Christian  men's  possession,  but  rather 
they  be  sure  witnesses  and  effectual  signs  of  grace." 
Thus  is  the  cross  put  on  a  level,  as  a  sacramental 
sign,  with  Baptism  and  the  Lord's  Supper.  The 
writer,  now  quoted,  is  not  fond  of  the  Crucifix  in 
Churches.  He  would  not  object  to  it  ''  as  an  object 
for  very  private  contemplation  under  certain  trying 
circumstances."  But  "  openly  exhibited,  it  produces 
the  same  sort  of  uncomfortable  feeling  with  certain 
Protestant  exposures  in  preaching  the  Mystery 
which  it  represents."  On  the  other  hand,  *Hhe  mere 
Cross  embodies  what  no  Christian  should  shrink 
from  contemplating;   while  of  the  awful  Mystery 


»  British  Critic  No.  54,  p.  259. 


2  lb.  No.  54,  p.  271 


279 


therewith  connected,  it  is  but  suggestive. — We  hope 
the  time  will  come  when  no  English  Church  will 
want,  what  many  possess  already,  the  Image  of  the 
Cross  in  some  place  sufficiently  conspicuous  to  assist 
the  devotions  of  the  worshipper. — Let  us  multiply 
the  same  holy,  efficacious  Emblem  far  and  wide. 
There  is  no  saying  how  many  sins  its  awful  form 
might  scare,  how  many  evils  avert. Truly  effi- 
cacious indeed ! 

But  the  Cross  is  not  the  only  sacred  symbol  which 
is  soon  to  be  erected  in  the  Churches.  The  above 
zealous  restorer  of  the  depth  and  richness  of  the  an- 
cient services  says : 

With  the  Cross  should  be  associated  other  Ca- 
tholic symbols  still  more  than  even  itself  (pcovaj^ra 
[vocal  to  the  spiritually  discerning.)  For  these, 
painted  windows  seem  to  furnish  a  suitable  place. 
They  should  at  all  events  be  confined  to  the  most  sa- 
cred portion  of  the  huilding.  Such  are  the  Lamb 
with  the  standard;  the  descending  Dove;  the  An- 
chor; the  Triangle;  the  Pelican;  the  i^^us,  (fish)  and 
others.  Perhaps  the  two  or  three  last  mentioned, 
as  being  of  most  recondite  meaning ^  should  he  adopted 
later  than  the  rest.'"'^ 

Here  we  see  Symbols  "  for  the  Times,"  as  well  as 
Tracts.  The  writer  speaks  of  "others,"  besides  those 
most  edifying  and  sacred  which  he  has  thought  the 
Times  permit  him  to  name.  The  other  names 
will  doubtless  follow  in  good  time.  So  then  we  shall 
soon  need  no  preaching  of  the  word  by  the  Minis- 
ters' voice.    The  lessons  in  the  service,  with  the 


1  British  Critic,  No.  54,  p.  271. 


2  lb.  No.  54,  pp.  271,  272. 


280 


preaching  of  these  symbols,  which  has  the  advan- 
tage over  that  of  a  sermon,  in  being  audible  only  by 
the  ear  that  is  prepared  for  their  awful  and  sacred 
meaning,  will  do  a  great  deal  better  than  the  present 
Ultra  Protestant  mode  of  dispensing  the  truth  as  it 
is  in  Jesus,  without  reserve. 

ADDITIONAL  RESTORATIONS. 

The  writer  of  the  Review  of  Tract  No.  86,  on  the 
Church  Services,  in  the  British  Critic,  proceeding 
in  his  revival  of  ancient  services  with  a  degree  of 
boldness  which  promises  very  much  in  the  way  of 
subsequent  developments  of  what,  like  the  fish  and 
triangle,  &c.,  may  be  ''too  recondite"  yet  for  the 
state  of  the  times,  recommends  as  follows : 

"  There  should  be  some  special  decoration  on  Festival  days  ;  al- 
tar coverings  and  pulpit  hangings  of  unusual  richness;  or  the  natu- 
ral flowers  of  the  season  woven  into  wreaths,  or  placed  (according 
to  primitive  custom)  upon  the  Altar.  These  should  be  chosen  with 
especial  reference  to  the  subject  of  the  Festival.  White  flowers  are 
most  proper  on  the  days  consecrated  to  the  Blessed  Virgin,  as  em- 
blematic of  sinless  purity;  purple  or  crimson  upon  the  several  Saints' 
days  (except  St.  John  Evangelist,  and  perhaps  St.  Luke),  to  signify 
the  blood  of  martyrdom;  and  on  All  Saints'  Days  and  the  Holy  In- 
nocents, white  should  be  intermingled,  as  a  memorial  of  virgin  inno- 
cence. We  deprecate  forced  flowers,  which  look  artificial ;  but  we 
believe  with  a  little  management  natural  flowers  of  the  proper  co- 
lours may  be  found  nearly  throughout  the  year.  It  is  diffi^cult  to 
conceive  a  more  suitable  occupation  for  the  Christian  poor,  than 
that  of  cultivating  flowers  foi'  such  a  purpose,  and  afterwards  ar- 
ranging them.  The  decoration  of  the  chancel,  however,  should  be 
the  especial  privilege  of  the  Minister  himself.  The  Church  bells 
should,  according  to  Archbishop  Laud^s  Injunctions,  be  rung  on 
Festivals  and  their  Eves.  Two  lights  should  be  placed  upon  the  Al- 
tar, according  to  Edward  the  6th's  order,  ratified  in  our  present 
Prayer  Book.    We  think  it  plain  that  these  candles  were  meant  at 


281 


the  Reformation  to  be  lighted,  as  had  been  Usual,  during  the  cele- 
bration of  the  Holy  Eucharist;  otherwise  they  do  not  so  well  'sig- 
nify '  (in  the  words  of  the  Injunction)  ihe  truth — Christus  Lux 
mundi.  But  such  practices  might  give  offence  in  these  days,  and 
we  do  not  advise  it,  though  inclined  to  regard  it  as  strictly  Anglican. 
For  the  same  reason,  we  should  be  unwilling  to  press  sudden  chan- 
ges in  the  ecclesiastical  dress,  though  it  is  plain  that  these  also  might 
be  reconciled  with  the  order  in  our  Prayer  Book,  which  directs  us  to 
Edward  6th's  time  for  the  practice  of  our  Church  as  respects  both 
vestments  and  ornaments.  Persons  should  be  encouraged  to  make 
obeisance  on  entering  Church,  and  the  Minister  should  never  ap- 
proach, or  pass,  the  Altar  without  doing  reverence  as  is  customary 
at  this  day  in  some  of  our  cathedrals.  We  think  it  quite  consistent 
with  the  Rubric  of  our  Church  to  consecrate  the  Holy  Elements  at 
the  centre  of  the  Altar  and  facing  it.  We  should  like  to  see  all  alms 
offered  at  the  Altar,  and  in  a  kneeling  posture.  At  least  the  alms 
and  oblations  of  Bread  and  Wine,  should  be  so  offered;  and  the 
remnants  after  consecration  should  be  received  likewise  kneeling."* 

SACRAMENT  OF  MARRIAGE. 

The  germ  of  this  Restoration  is  quite  visible  in 
the  following  mystic  language : 

"  The  ordinance  of  Marriage  has  an  inward  and 
spiritual  meaning,  contained  in  it  and  revealed 
through  it — as  if  persons,  to  place  themselves  in  that 
human  relation,  interested  themselves,  in  some  secret 
way,  in  the  divine  relation  (that  of  Christ  and  the 
Church)  of  w^hich  it  is  a  figure." — Tract,  No  71, 
p.  89. 

USE  OF  ROMISH  PRAYER  BOOKS  AND  RULES  OF 
FASTING,  ETC. 

''  An  Ecclesiastical  Almanac  for  1840,  has  been 
published  for  the  guidance  of  Oxfordists  amid  the 


iSee  British  Critic  No.  54,  pp.  272,  273.— All  surely  very  edifying. 
36 


282 


riches  of  the  ancient  services  as  found  in  Roman  and 
Parisian  Breviaries.  In  this  is  "  a  selection  from  the 
old  Catholic  Service  Books,  of  Psalms  and  other  pas- 
sages of  Holy  Scripture,  appropriate  to  the  several 
classes  of  Saints'  Days"  while  the  minute  rules  of 
the  Roman  Church  are  quoted  as  a  guide  to  indivi- 
duals "  in  reference  to  days  of  Fasting  and  Abstinence. 

We  have  already  stated  that  the  British  Critic  re- 
gards it  as  a  very  delightful  sign  of  the  grov^th  of 
the  Times  that  Parker,  in  Oxford,  finds  it  his  inter- 
est to  import  a  large  number  of  copies  of  the  Roman 
and  Paris  Breviaries  for    private  devotion." 

SERVICE  IN  AN  UNKNOWN  TONGUE — AND  DISUSE  OF 
PREACHING. 

That  these  writers  have  said  any  thing  positively 
in  favour  of  service  in  an  unknown  tongue  is  not 
here  asserted;  but  their  whole  system  of  Reserve, 
of  sacred  veils  over  awful  mysteries"  to  conceal 
them  from  the  eye  of  the  profane,  and  of  the  use  of 
all  those  sacred  Symbols  which  only  the  initiated 
are  supposed  to  be  capable  of  reading,  indicates  the 
very  principle  on  which  the  Service  in  an  Unknown 
Tongue  in  the  Romish  Church  is  defended. 

It  is  considered  by  these  divines  a  great  advan- 
tage in  Hymns  or  Psalms  for  public  worship,  when 
they  ^'not  only  open  and  disclose,  but  also  withdraw 
and  conceal  the  higher  spiritual  senses,  according  to 
the  character  of  the  persons  who  make  use  of  them 
— serving  as  a  religious  veil  to  withhold  from  some 
what  they  impart  to  others" — lest  it  should  ^'be  pro- 
faned by  a  worldly  eye."^ 


» See  Review  of  a  New  Version  of  the  Psalms  in  the  British  Critic,  No.  53. 


283 


Why  then  should  there  be  no  such  veil  over  the 
service  for  the  Eucharist  to  hide  its  awful  mysteries 
from  the  profane,  and  so  of  Baptism,  &c.  Why,  if 
a  poor  creature,  ignorant  of  the  Atonement  and  of 
every  thing  else  but  that  the  Cross  is  a  sacred  sym- 
bol and  efficacious  sign  of  grace,"  standing  or  pros- 
trating herself  before  it,  with  implicit^  but  with  no 
explicit  faith  in  what  it  signifies,  may  be  supposed  to 
have  a  strong  sense  of  the  power  of  a  saving  faith, 
as  we  have  seen  asserted ;  why  may  not  a  whole 
congregation  of  such  persons  be  equally  profited  by 
the  mere  contemplation  and  preaching  of  the  sacred 
"  Catholic  Symbols"  above  described,  the  Triangle, 
the  Fish,  the  Anchor,  the  Pelican,  added  to  the  mani- 
pulations and  genuflexions,  of  the  Priest,  his  divers 
bowings  and  incensings,  accompanied  with  the  aid  of 
rich  altar-cloths,  symbolic  candlesticks,  splendid  sa- 
cerdotal vestments,  and  enchanting  choral  music? 

The  same  considerations  teach  how  little  use  there 
is  in  frequent  preaching,  for  all  the  purposes  of  the 
Oxford  system.  The  Principle  of  Reserve  requires 
a  far  more  restrained  method  of  preaching  than  is  at 
present  practised,  especially  as  to  the  Atonement 
and  other  such  doctrines,  which  in  this  divinity  are 
not  among  the  matters  which  must  be  explicitly  be- 
lieved, in  order  to  a  saving  faith.  The  outward  cross, 
contemplated,  is  considered  as  so  "efficacious,"  that 
one  need  know  nothing  more  of  the  Atonement,  to 
have  the  merits  of  Christ  applied  to  his  soul. 

"  The  Church,"  says  the  British  Critic,  "is  out  of 
her  place,  converting  in  a  Christian  country."  The 
present  "degraded"  state  of  the  Church  of  England 
reconciles  the  Oxford  Reviewer  "  in  some  measure 


1 


284 

to  a  more  excited  tone  of  preaching  than  is  consis- 
tent with  the  perfect  theory  of  the  Catholic  system." 
But,  says  the  cautious  writer : 

"  Not  indeed  to  the  prominent  exhibition  in  preaching  of  the 
Christian  Mysteries ;  for  this  were  inadnnissible  under  far  nnore  ex- 
treme circumstances  and  even  upon  the  supposition  of  our  congre- 
gations being  literally  heathen  ;  indeed  the  more  inadmissible  the 
farther  the  hearers  receded  from  the  perfect  state."  &c.^ 

IMAGE  WORSHIP. 

That  these  writers  have  advocated  Image  Wor- 
ship, is  not  here  pretended.  But  that  they  manifest 
a  strange  tenderness  and  tendency  towards  the  abom- 
inable idolatry,  we  shall  easily  show.  This  is  one 
of  the  subjects  which  they  would  exclude  from  dis- 
cussion; but  if  it  must  be  discussed,  as  with  Tran- 
substantiation,  they  would  not  rest  the  argument 
on  Scripture,  because  there  may  be  a  difference 
of  opinion  as  to  its  meaning;  but  on  Tradition. 
As  if  the  simple  command,  Thou  shalt  not  make 
to  thyself  any  graven  image,  &c.,  which  any  one 
can  read  for  himself,  were  of  less  plainness  and 
solemn  decision,  than  the  confused  folios  of  tradition 
for  which  the  million  must  depend  on  the  reading  of 
the  few. 

We  quote  again  from  the  Charge  of  the  Bishop  of 
Exeter. 

'*  I  yet  cannot  but  lament,  that  they  sometimes  deal  with  some  of 
the  worst  corruptions  of  Rome,  in  terms  not  indicating  so  deep  a 
sense  of  their  pernicious  tendency,  as  yet  I  doubt  not  that  they  feel. 

"  For  instance :  defending  themselves  against  the  charge  of  leaning 
towards  Popery,  they  confidently  affirm,  that  '  in  the  seventeenth 
century  the  Theology  of  the  Body  of  the  English  Church  was  sub- 


«  British  Critic,  No.  54,  p.  261. 


285 


slantially  the  same  as  theirs and  in  proof  of  this,  they  profess,  in 
stating  the  errors  of  Rome,  to  ♦  follow  closely  the  order  observed  by 
Bishop  Hall  in  his  treatise  on  '  the  Old  Religion,''  whose  Protest- 
antism, they  add,  '  is  unquestinnable,'  and  is  claimed,  therefore,  as 
a  voucher  for  their  own.  But,  looking  to  particulars,  I  lament  to 
see  them  '  following,  indeed,  the  order  of  Bishop  Hall,'  but  widely 
departing  from  his  truly  Protestant  sentiments,  on  more  than  one  im- 
portant article. 

"  First,  of  ♦  the  worship  of  images,'  (for  so  that  great  Divine  justly 
designates  what  they  more  delicately  call '  the  honor  paid  to  images,') 
they  say  only,  that  it  is  'dangerous  in  the  case  of  the  uneducated, 
that  is,  of  the  great  part  of  Christians.'  But  Bishop  Hall  treats  it 
as  not  merely  'dangerous'  to  some,  but  as  sinful  in  all ;  as  'against 
Scripture;'  'the  Book  of  God  is  full  of  indignation  against  this 
practice ;'  and  '  against  reason.'  '  What  a  madness  is  it,'  says  he, 
*  for  a  living  man  to  stoop  unto  a  dead  stock  !'  " 

Of  the  singular  tenderness  of  these  writers  to- 
wards the  idolatry  of  the  Romish  Church,  there  is 
one  example  which  as  it  comes  incidentally  into  the 
mass  of  Oxford  writings,  may  be  considered  as  spe- 
cially indicative  of  their  habit  of  mind.  The  Re- 
viewer in  a  late  number  of  the  British  Critic  is  de- 
scribing the  Decorations  of  English  Churches  in 
Papal  times.  He  has  gone  over  the  whole  detail  of 
pictures  of  St.  George  and  the  Dragon,  of  St. 
Thomas  a  Becket,  &c.,  and  ''numerous  other  sub- 
jects from  the  Legends  of  the  Saints" — he  has  told 
us  of  the  various  crucifixes,  and  roods,  and  images, 
and  rood-lofts,  and  beams,  for  the  display  of  roods  and 
images ;  we  look  in  vain  for  the  least  expression  of 
sensibility  or  aversion  at  the  thought  of  the  idolatry 
of  which  those  ''decorations^'  were  once  the  objects. 
At  last  it  is  mentioned  that — 

"  To  some  particular  images,  peculiar  honour  was  paid  ;  sums 
were  bequeathed  to  furnish  lights  to  burn  before  them,  and  pilgrim- 


286 


ages  and  vows  were  made  to  them.  Those  of  the  Virgin,  thus  noted, 
were  in  the  highest  repute  and  very  numerous.  Amongst  others, 
our  Lady  of  Pity,  our  Lady  of  Grace,  our  Lady  of  VValsingham,  &c." 

But  now  we  are  told  of  a  most  famous  image — our 
Lady  of  Bolton,  once  in  Durham  Cathedral,  which 
was  then  connected  with  a  Monastery.  A  sickening 
account  is  drawn  from  an  old  writer,  full  of  devout 
admiration  of  this  most  goodly  spectacle. 

"  It  was  made  to  open  with  gems  from  the  breast  downwards. 
And  within  the  said  image  was  wrought  the  image  of  our  Saviour, 
marvellously  finely  gilt,  holding  up  his  hands,  and  betwixt  his 
hands,  a  large  fair  crucifix  of  Christ — the  which  crucifix  was  to  be 
taken  forth  every  Good  Friday,  and  every  man  did  creep  unto  it, 
that  was  in  the  Church — and  every  principal  day,  the  said  image 
was  opened,  that  every  man  might  see  pictured  within  her,  the 
Father,  the  Son,  and  the  Holy  Ghost,  most  curiously  and  finely  gilt  ; 
and  both  the  sides  within  her  were  finely  varnished  wiih  green  and 
flowers  of  gold,  which  was  a  goodly  sight  for  all  the  beholders 
thereof." 

Such  was  ^'  Our  Lady  of  Bolton."  A  more  profane 
enormity  was  never  set  up  in  the  house  of  God.  It 
was  this  very  Image,  with  others,  of  which  Cranmer 
speaks  by  name,  and  with  zealous  indignation : 

"  They  kissed  their  feet  devoutly;  and  to  them  they  ofl^ered  can- 
dles and  images  of  wax,  rings,  beads,  gold  and  silver  abundantly. 
And  because  they  that  so  taught  them  had  thereby  great  commodity, 
they  maintained  the  same  with  feigned  miracles  and  erroneous  doc- 
trine, teaching  the  people  that  God  would  hear  their  prayers  made 
before  this  image  rather  than  before  another  image.  Seeing  there- 
fore it  is  an  horrible  idolatry  to  worship  the  sun,  which  is  a  most 
goodly  creature  of  God  ;  let  every  man  consider  how  devilish  idola- 
try it  is,  to  worship  our  own  images,  made  by  our  own  hands."* 

Such  is  the  lanoruao^e  of  one  of  those  *'our  old  mar- 
tyrs  who  rather  than  they  would  once  kneel  or  offer 


'  Cranmer's  Catechism  ;  on  First  CommaDdment. 


287 


up  one  crumb  of  incense  before  an  image,  suffered 
most  cruel  and  horrible  deaths."^ 

But  how  speaks  the  organ  of  Oxford  Divinity  of 
this  hideous  development  of  the  genius  of  Roman- 
ism ?  Words  of  loathing,  surely  the  heart  of  a  Cler- 
gyman of  the  Church  of  England  cannot  smother. 
Let  us  hear ! 

''Much  there  was  (in  the  ancient  Churches  of  En- 
gland) which  sober  piety  cannot  sanctionP^ 

But  is  this  all  ?  Yes — every  syllable  of  the  cen- 
sure !  Human  ingenuity  could  not  have  invented 
less.  Entire  silence  would  have  been  more  severe. 
But  even  this  pin-mark  is  too  severe  a  wound  with- 
out some  healing  balm.  "Much  there  was  which 
sober  piety  cannot  sanction;  but  (adds  the  indulgent 
apologist)  let  us  not  forget  what  was  holy  and  reli- 
gious on  account  of  incidental  corruptions."  Here 
the  subject  is  dropped,  on  the  principle,  it  would 
seem,  of  ''least  said  soonest  mended leaving  us  to 
the  necessary  conclusion,  that  all  these  hideous  forms 
of  Antichrist,  these  diversified  tools  of  an  abominable 
idolatry,  uniting  "  Christ  with  Belial,  the  Temple  of 
God  with  idols,"  was  only  an  incidental  thing,  no- 
thing to  be  charged  to  the  legitimate  tendency  or 
systematic  patronage  of  Romanism;  only  incidental, 
and  of  little  consequence,  compared  with  '^all  that 
was  holy  and  religious''  in  the  essential  working  of 
the  system.  Where  shall  we  find  in  these  authors 
such  kind  apologies  for  that  system  of  doctrine,  and 
that  way  of  preaching  Christ — the  way  of  "a  large 
portion"  of  the  most  devoted,  most  spiritual,  most 


»  Homily  against  Peril  of  Idolatry.  2  British  Critic  No.  50,  p.  381. 


288 


useful  Clergy  of  the  Church  of  England — the  way 
called  Ultra-Protestant?  We  hear  nothing  of  inci- 
dental evil  in  that  connection.  Corruption  there  is 
in-bred,  essential,  systematic.  To  be  ''holy  and  reli- 
gious''' under  that  system  is  incidental.  While  to 
worship  profane  representations  of  the  Trinity  and 
of  the  Virgin  in  images  of  wood,  and  paint,  and 
gilding;  images  disgusting  to  delicacy,  as  well  as 
odious  to  piety,  is  an  incidental  corruption,  with 
which  we  should  deal  tenderly,  because  of  so  much 
that  was  holy  and  religious  connected  with  it.  To 
preach  Imputed  righteousness  for  Justification  before 
God — to  teach  that  ''it  is  not  hy  the  inhesion  of  grace 
in  us,  hut  by  the  imputation  of  righteousness  to  us^ 
that  rve  are  justified'' — that  "rve  cannot  he  accounted 
righteous  hut  hy  Christ's  righteousness  imputed  tous"^ 
— this,  says  Mr.  Newman,  is  ''a  real  corruption,  a 
bondage  to  shadows — the  gift  of  the  law — not  of 
grace,  a  tyrannical  system  which  promises  liberty, 
but  conspires  against  it — which  feeds  us  on  shells 
and  husks,"  instead  of  upon  Christ.  It  is  "another 
Gospel."  "Away  rvith  it!"  exclaims  the  indignant  of 
reprobation  of  Mr.  Newman.  Alas !  that  we  could 
see  a  little  more  in  these  writers  of  such  indignation 
against  the  manifold  and  deep-seated  corruptions  of 
that  Church,  which  our  Homilies  call  emphatically 
"the  idolatrous  Church."'^  Do  they  feel  constrained 
to  endeavour  to  cleanse  from  the  Temple,  as  a  mon- 
strous profanation,  the  preaching  of  Justification  by 
Imputed  Righteousness  only,  and  will  they  not, 


1  Beveridge  on  the  Articles,  pp.  307,  308.  ^  Against  Peril  of  Idolatry, 

Part  III. 


289 


with  at  least  equal  zeal,  drive  out,  with  the  knotted 
scourge  of  their  indignation,  those  who  turn  the 
House  of  Prayer  into  a  den  of  idols  ?  Will  they  not 
partake  in  the  spirit  of  their  own  Church,  "purged 
from  dumb  idols  to  serve  the  living  God,"  as  she  ex- 
claims against  the  Papacy  to  which  she  was  once  in 
that  bondage  :  O  worldly  and  fleshly  wisdom  !  ever 
bent  to  maintain  the  inventions  and  traditions  of 
men  by  carnal  reason,  and  by  the  same  to  disannul 
or  deface  the  holy  ordinances,  laws  and  honour  of  the 
Eternal  God."  "Away  for  shame  with  these  co- 
loured cloaks  of  idolatry,  of  images  and  pictures  to 
teach  idiots,  nay  to  make  idiots  and  stark  fools  and 
beasts  of  Christians!"^ 

But  why  should  we  be  unprepared  for  strange 
evidence  of  extreme  tenderness  in  these  writers 
toward  corruptions,  which  filled  our  Cranmers  and 
Hookers  and  Jewels  with  loathing,  when  in  the 
"Remains"  of  one  of  the  writers  of  the  Oxford 
Tracts,  edited  by  some  of  the  others,  "  because  of  the 
extreme  importance  of  the  views  to  which  the  whole 
is  meant  to  be  subordinate  "^ — and  edited  too  without 
the  least  hint  of  disapprobation  of  any  part,  we  read 
such  passages  as  the  following:  "I  think  people  are 
injudicious  to  talk  against  Roman  Catholics  for  wor- 
shipping of  Saints  and  honouring  the  Virgin  and 
Images,  &c.  These  things  may  perhaps  be  idola- 
trous, I  cannot  make  up  my  mind  about  it."^  A  gain , 
"As  for  the  Reformers,  I  think  worse  and  worse  of 
them.    Jewel  was  what  you  would  call  in  these 


'Homily  against  Peril  of  Idolatry,  P.  iii.  2  Preface  to  Froude's  Re- 

mains. 3  Rem.  vol.  1,  p.  294. 

37 


290 


days,  an  irreverent  dissenter:  his  Defence  of  the 
Apology,  disgusted  me  more  than  almost  any  work 
I  ever  read."^  Again,  "  Really  I  hate  the  Reforma- 
tion and  the  Reformers,  more  and  more." 

Such  is  lano^uaore  out  of  a  book,  and  characteristic 
of  a  book,  which  belongs,  of  right,  to  the  documents 
in  evidence  of  the  nature  of  Oxford  Divinity,  and  of 
its  influence  in  begetting  a  taste  and  sympathy  and 
general  character  in  accordance  with  those  of  the 
Church  of  Rome.  We  cannot  leave  it  till  we  have 
invoked  the  spirit  of  the  devout  and  faithful  Bishop 
Hall,  to  come  forth  and  rebuke  it. 

"  Sooner  may  God  create  a  new  Rome,  than  re- 
form the  old.  Yea,  needs  must  that  Church  put  off 
itself  and  cease  to  be  w-hat  it  is,  ere  it  can  begin  to 
be  what  it  once  was.  Rome  may  be  sacked  and  bat- 
tered, as  it  hath  often  been,  by  military  forces;  but 
purged  by  admonitions,  convictions,  censures,  it  will 
never  be.    Only  this  one  thing  which  God  hath  pro- 


1  Remains,  1,  377,  3S0. 

It  may  perhaps  explain  some  of  Mr.  Froude's  disgust  at  Jewel's  irreverence, 
&c.,  to  remember  that  this  able  Apologist  of  the  Reformation  is  supposed  to 
have  written  the  Homily  against  the  Peril  of  Idolatry  from  which  we  have  just 
quoted — and  which  tramples  down  in  such  just  abhorrence  the  kind  dubiety  of 
Mr.  Froude  as  to  the  worship  of  graven  images.  That  "  irreverent  dissenter  " 
was  the  Patron  of  Hooker.  The  Church  would  probably  not  have  had  her 
Hooker,  had  she  not  been  blessed  with  a  Jewel.  The  former,  styled  by  Bishop 
Goodwin,  Theologicorum  Oxojiium,  the  Oxford  of  Divines,  as  Athens  was 
called  "  the  Greece  of  Greece,"  was  of  a  different  opinion  from  Mr.  Froude,  as 
to  his  Patron's  merits — even  that  "Ae  ivas  the  xvorthiest  Divine  that  Christen- 
dom had  bred  for  some  hundreds  of  years. — Eccl.  Pol.  b.  ii.  §  6.  It  would 
perhaps  have  shaken,  a  little,  Mr.  Froude's  confidence  in  his  own  judgment, 
had  he  remembered  that  the  Biographer  of  Dr.  Jackson  counts  it  a  high  praise 
of  that  learned  writer  to  compare  him  with  "  the  invaluable  Bishop  Jewel." 
Le  Bas,  speaking  of  the  Apology,  says :  "No  man  on  earth  was  more  consum- 
mately qualified  than  Jewel  to  render  this  good  office  to  the  Church." 


291 

mised  we  do  verily  expect ;  to  see  the  day  when  the 
Lord  Jesus,  shall  with  the  breath  of  his  mouth,  de- 
stroy this  lawless  man,  long  since  revealed  to  his 
Church  ;  and  by  the  brightness  of  His  glorious  com- 
ing, discover  and  despatch  him.  Not  only  in  the 
means  and  way,  but  in  the  end  also,  is  Rome  oppo- 
site to  Heaven.  The  Heaven  shall  pass  away  by  a 
change  of  quality,  not  an  utter  destruction  of  sub- 
stance.   Rome  by  destruction,  not  by  change."^ 

CHRISTIAN  HOLINESS. 

It  was  well  said  by  the  divines  in  the  Council  of 
Trent  that  when  Luther  wanted  to  destroy  Indul- 
gences, the  Romish  doctrine  of  Penances,  of  the 
Justifying  efficacy  of  the  Sacraments,  Authority  of 
Priests,  Purgatory,  Sacrifice  of  the  Mass,  and  all 
other  Romish  "remedies  for  the  remission  of  sins," 


J  Bishop  Hall's  Works  (No  Peace  with  Rome),  8vo.  ix.  pp.  73 — 75. 

See  a  strong  comparison  between  Romish  and  Heathen  idolatry  in  Book  V. 
vol.  ii.  of  Jackson's  Works — especially  c.  xxvi,  in  which  it  is  maintained  that 
^Hhe  -ivQvship  ivhich  Satan  demanded  of  our  Saviour  ivas  the  very  same  where- 
-with  the  Romish  Church  ivorshippeth  Saints." 

The  same  strong  writer,  speaking  of  the  covert  devices  by  which  Satan  con- 
trived to  introduce  idolatry  into  the  Christian  Church,  says,  "  Now  admitting 
a  resolution  in  the  great  Professor  of  destructive  acts,  so  to  refine  or  sublimate 
his  wonted  poisons,  as  they  might  the  more  secretly  mingle  with  the  food  of 
life  :  where  can  we  suspect  this  policy  to  have  been  practised,  if  not  in  the  Ro- 
inish  Church  ;  whose  idolatrous  rites  and  service  of  Satan,  in  former  ages,  have 
been  so  gross,  that  if  w^e  had  seen  the  temptation,  unacquainted  with  the  suc- 
cess, we  should  certainly  have  thought  the  great  Tempter  had  mightily  forgot- 
ten himself,  or  lost  his  wonted  skill  in  going  so  palpably  about  the  business; 
nor  could  any  policy  have  so  prevailed  against  God's  Church,  unless  it  had 
been  first  surprised  with  a  lethargy,  or  brought  into  a  relapse  of  heathenish  ig- 
norance. And  what  branch  of  implanted  superstition  can  we  imagine  in  any 
son  of  Adam  which  may  not  sufficiently  feed  itself  with  some  part  or  other  of 
the  Romish  Liturgy,  or  with  some  customs  by  that  Church  allowed,  concerning 
the  Invocation  of  Saints,  the  Adoration  of  reliqucs,  or  Worship  of  hnages." — 
Von  i,  p.  934. 


292 


Justification,  hj  Faith  onhj,  seemed  to  Mm  a  good 
means  to  effect  this.''  Therefore,-  hy  a  contrary 
rvay,''  (it  was  argued  in  the  Council)  he  that  will 
establish  the  body  of  the  Catholic  doctrine  must  over- 
throw this  heresy  of  Justification  hy  faith  onlyP^ 

Both  were  right.  It  was  Justification  by  faith 
that  w^ent  into  the  temple  of  the  Lord,  after  Romish 
corruptions  had  turned  it  into  a  market-house  of 
Masses,  Indulgences,  Relics  and  ''slaves  and  souls  of 
men,"  and  overturning  the  tables  of  the  money- 
changers and  the  shrines  of  images,  drove  out  "the 
merchants  of  the  earth,"  and  said  ''  make  not  my 
Father's  house  a  house  of  merchandize."  None  of 
these  profane  intrusions  into  the  sanctuary  of  God 
can  stand  the  stern  rebuke  of  that  doctrine.  Like 
Dagon  before  the  Ark,  they  fall  on  their  faces  con- 
founded, and  their  arms  and  heads  are  cut  off.  Justly 
did  the  Fathers  of  Trent  begin  their  work  by  casting 
out  this,  as  the  first  step  to  the  bringing  back  of  the 
whole  host  of  their  ejected  ''remedies  for  the  remis- 
sion of  sins."  All  these  must  return,  in  substance,  if 
not  in  name  and  form,  when,  for  the  true  Gospel  doc- 
trine of  Justification,  that  of  Rome  is  preached.  We 
have  seen  such  results  most  impressively  in  the 
showing  of  this  Chapter.  With  the  return  of  Justi- 
fication, by  Inherent  righteousness,  has  come  back 
the  Romish  Doctrine  of  the  Nature  and  Office  of 
Faith ;  of  the  opus  operatum  of  the  Sacraments ;  of 
Baptismal  Justification;  of  Original  Sin;  of  Mortal 
and  Venial  Sins;  of  Sin  after  Baptism;  with  most 
evident  and  lamentable  leanings,  to  say  the  least, 
towards  the  whole  array  of  Romish  Purgatory,  Invo- 


>  Father  Paul's  Hist.  p.  190. 


293 


cation  of  Saints,  Prayers  for  the  Dead,  Multiplica- 
tion of  SacramentaLs  and  of  all  external  pomp  and  pa- 
rade in  Church  services;  Transubstantiation,  Mira- 
cle-working, &c.,  &c. 

"The  tree  is  known  by  its  fruits."  We  saw  the 
tree  first  in  its  root  and  trunk ;  and  we  have  now  seen 
it  more  fully  in  its  branches  and  products. 

Now  it  is  difficult  to  suppose  that  all  this  agree- 
ment with  Romanism  can  exist  without  a  corres- 
ponding effect  upon  the  general  views  and  tastes  and 
sympathies  of  those  so  conformed,  in  reference  to  the 
whole  Christian  ivalk  and  character.  All  this  we 
take  to  be  strikingly  indicated  in  the  following  pas- 
sage of  Dr.  Pusey's  Tract  on  Baptism. 

We  should  at  once  admit  that  whole  bodies  of  men  in  the  Church  of 
Rome  had  arrived  at  a  height  of  holiness,  and  devotion, and  self-denial 
and  love  of  God,  which,  in  this  our  day,  is  rarely  to  be  seen  in  our 
Apostolic  Church;  yet  we  should  not  for  a  moment  doubt  that  our 
Church  is  the  pure  Church,  although  her  sons  seem  of  late  but  rarely 
to  have  grown  up  to  that  degree  of  Christian  maturity  which  might 
have  been  hoped  from  the  nurture  of  such  a  mother  ;  we  should  not 
think  the  comparative  holiness  of  these  men,  any  test  as  to  the  truth 
of  any  one  characteristic  doctrine  of  the  Church  of  Rome;  we  should 
rightly  see  that  the  holiness  of  these  men  was  not  owing  to  the  dis- 
tinctive doctrines  of  their  Church;  but  that  God  had  ripened  the  seed 
of  holiness  in  their  hearts,  notwithstanding  the  corrupt  mixture  with 
which  our  Enemy  had  hoped  to  choke  it;  we  should  rightly  attri- 
bute the  apparent  comparative  failure  among  ourselves  in  these 
times,  not  to  our  not  possessing  the  truth,  but  to  our  slothful  use  of 
the  abundant  treasures  which  God  has  bestowed  on  us.  They  hold 
the  great  Catholic  truths  of  our  Creeds,  and  much  of  the  self-disci- 
pline (as  fasting)  or  means  of  grace  (as  more  frequent  prayer)  which 
modern  habits  have  relinquished ;  and  these  have  brought  their 
fruit."! 


*  Pusey's  Tract  on  Scriptural  Views  of  Baptism,  p.  11,  12 — Am.  Ed. 


294 


Thus  is  the  holiness  of  the  '^pure"  and  "ApostoHc 
Church"  of  England,  whose  doctrines  and  institu- 
tions these  writers  profess  to  regard  as  the  old  path — 
the  Via  Media,  placed  in  such  dishonourable,  and 
assuredly  most  untrue  comparison  with  that  of  a  Hie- 
rarchy in  which,  according  to  the  English  Church, 
interpreting  the  Scriptures,  ''Antichrist  sitteth'' — 
''that  Man  of  Sin;  a  Church  which  makes  tradi- 
tions of  men  paramount  to  the  Word  of  God ;  which 
has  dared  to  add  uninspired  books  to  the  Canon  of 
Holy  Scripture;  which  destroys  the  Gospel  doctrine 
of  salvation  by  faith,  and  teaches  human  merits  for 
the  Justification  of  sinners  before  God;  which 
changes  the  nature  of  Original  Sin,  and  makes  a 
great  part,  and  many  of  the  worst,  of  actual  sins,  ve- 
nial; which  teaches  that  the  mere  fear  of  punish- 
ment, called  ''attrition,""  when  united  with  the  Sa- 
crament of  Penance,  is  a  substitute  for  true  contrition 
of  heart ;  which  preaches  indulgences,  works  of  su- 
pererogation, the  intercession  and  invocation  of  Saints, 
and  Purgatory;  which  sells  Masses  for  the  dead;  dis- 
honours the  one  great  sacrifice  for  sin  by  making  a 
propitiatory  sacrifice  of  Christ  in  the  daily  Mass, 
offered  by  every  Priest;  which  destroys  the  Sacra- 
ment of  the  Eucharist,  by  denying  one  half  of  its 
outward  part  to  the  laity,  and  by  paying  it  idolatrous 
w^orship  degrades  the  remainder;  which  teaches  her 
people  to  be  worshippers  of  Images,  Relics,  Pictures 
of  Saints  and  Angels,  elevating  the  Virgin  Mary  to 
a  rivalship,  in  honour,  with  Christ;  turning  the  Tem- 
ple of  the  living  God,  into  a  den  of  idols,  and  filling 
it  with  "  the  abomination  that  maketh  desolate.'' 

This  which  our  Reformers  called,  "  the  Mother  of 


295 


Abominations,^^  the  Babylon"  of  the  Revelations, 
and  which  that  book  declares  has  become  the  hold 
of  every  foul  spirit,  and  a  cage  of  every  unclean 
and  hateful  bird,"  so  that  ''a  voice  from  heaven" 
cries  come  out  of  her  my  people,  that  ye  be  not 
partakers  of  her  sins,  and  that  ye  receive  not  of  her 
plagues;"^  this,  in  the  view  of  these  modern  Re- 
formers, is  the  Church  so  far  beyond  comparison  in 
the  holiness  of  her  people  ! 

What  kind  of  holiness  then,  we  must  ask?  Turn 
back  to  the  extract  from  our  author  and  see — Whole 
bodies  of  men.'" — This  of  course  can  mean  nothing 
else  than  corporate  religious  bodies,  Monastic  bodies. 
Then  this  eminent  holiness  of  the  Church  of  Rome 
is  to  be  found  in  her  Monasteries,  among  her  Monks  ! 
Of  course  then,  we  are  to  look  for  this  eminent  holi- 
ness not  where  Romanism  in  its  developments,  is  mod- 
ified by  surrounding  Protestantism;  but  in  those 
countries  where  the  Reformation  has  not  reached  it; 
w^here  Monastic  Bodies  flourish  in  all  the  glory  and 
holiness  of  those  days  of  Monastic  peace,  when  the 
sound  of  the  trump  of  Luther  had  not  yet  broke  up- 
on the  silence  of  the  cell,  or  disturbed  the  quiet  of 
the  Litany  of  St.  Mary.  We  must  go  then  to  the 
Monks  of  Italy,  and  Spain,  and  Portugal,  and  see 
them  as  they  w^ere  before  the  Council  of  Trent,  in 
order  to  find  those  "  bodies  of  men  in  the  Church  of 
Rome,"  who  had  arrived  at  a  height  of  holiness 
and  devotion,  and  self-denial,  and  love  to  God,  which 
in  this  our  day  is  rarely  to  be  seen  in  our  Apostolic 
Church."  And  what  caused  this  eminent  superiority^ 


•  Rev.  xviii.  2,  3,  4. 


296 


in  spite  of  all  the  false  doctrines  of  Romanism? 
What  corrected  the  tendency  of  that  maze  in 
which  the  Church  of  Rome  doth  lead  her  followers 
when  they  ask  her  the  way  to  Justification?"^  Dr. 
Pusey  tells  us,  it  ^^  as  not  any  thing  characteristic  in 
doctrine,  but,  because,  while  the  great  doctrines  of 
the  Apostles  Creed  are  held  alike  in  Rome  and  Eng- 
land, "much  of  the  self-discipline  (as  fasting,)  or 
means  of  grace,  [as  inore  frequent  prayer,)  which  mo- 
dern habits  have  relinquished,"  has  been  retained  in 
the  Church  of  Rome. 

Now,  let  the  reader  obserye  that  this  eminent  holi- 
ness is  ascribed  not  merely  to  fasting  and  7nore  fre- 
quent prayer,  but  to  other  means  of  grace  relinquished 
hy  Protestants,  of  which  these  are  only  specimens. 
But  what  other  ?  Do  we  not  retain  the  Word,  the 
Sacraments,  Private  and  Public  Prayer  ?  Pray  what 
are  those  other  means  of  grace  so  -productive  of 
holiness  ?  We  know  of  none  in  the  Scriptures.  But 
they  are  retained,  according  to  Dr.  Pusey,  in  the  Ro- 
mish Church,  in  the  Monastic  bodies,  especially. 
What  can  they  he?  Dr.  Pusey  speaks  with  Reserve. 
Why  does  he  not  enumerate  them?  We  desire  to 
know  the  particulars  of  what  will  supply  this  defi- 
ciency of  holiness  among  us.  Who  can  doubt  what 
he  means?  What  is  there  which  Protestants  have 
relinquished  but  the  Holy  Water,  the  Auricular 
Confession,  the  Sacramental  Penances,  Extreme  Unc- 
tion, Anointing  at  Baptism  and  Confirmation,  Pray- 
ing for  the  dead,  the  use  of  Images,  of  Pictures,  of 
Crosses,  and  the  other  holy  ''Catholic  and  efficacious 


1  Hooker. 


•297 


signs,"  the  frequent  Crossing  and  Genuflexions  and 
Salutations,  and  Ave  Marias,  and  Masses,  and  Pil- 
grimages, the  hair  shirt  and  knotted  whip  of  the 
Monastery?  Some  of  these,  at  least,  he  must  mean. 
The  British  Critic,  as  before  shown,  brings  out  his 
idea  in  reference  to  many  of  the  above. 

But,  at  any  rate.  Dr.  Pusey  ascribes  the  eminent 
holiness  in  the  Church  of  Rome,  to  that  more  fre- 
quent praying  and  fasting  which,  he  says,  is  relin- 
quished among  Protestants.  What  then  is  this  more 
frequent  praying  ? 

Will  Dr.  Pusey  hear,  on  this  subject,  a  writer  for 
whom  is  professed  among  his  fellows  and  disciples,  a 
special  regard  ? 

"  Rome,  (says  Jackson,)  is  so  besotted  with  the  grapes  of  her  own 
planting,  that  she  knows  not  what  abominations  she  commits,  nor 
with  whom.  Like  a  harlot  drunk  in  a  common  Inn,  she  prostrates 
herself  to  every  passenger,  and  sets  open  all  the  temples  of  God, 
whose  keys  have  been  commitled  to  her  custody,  that  they  may- 
serve  as  common  stews  for  satiating  the  foul  souls  of  infernal  spirits; 
whom  she  thither  invites  by  solemn  enchantments,  as  by  sacrificiag 
and  offering  incense  unto  Images.  And  finding  pleasure  in  the  prac- 
tice, dreams  she  embraceth  her  Lord  and  husband,  whilst  these  un- 
clean birds  encage  themselves  in  her's  and  her  children's  breasts."* 
"  The  idolatry  of  Rome- Heathen,  agrees  with  the  idolatry  of  Rome- 
Christian,  as  the  type  or  shadow  with  the  body  or  substance."^ 
**  While  I  read  these  and  other  Litanies  used  by  the  Romish  Church, 
I  cannot  but  congratulate  the  wisdom  and  moderation  of  the  Church 
wherein  I  was  born  and  baptized,  which  hath  so  well  extracted  the 
spirit  of  primitive  devotion  from  the  grossness  of  later  and  declin- 
ing ages  of  svperstition.  These  admitted  new  Mediators  unto  their 
Liturgies,  with  as  great  facility  as  our  Universities  do  students  unto 
their  Registers.""  "The  Romish  Church  in  her  public  Liturgy 
doth  often  give  the  reality  of  Christ's  sovereign  titles,  sometimes  the 


'  Jackson's  Works,  1.  p.  990. 
38 


2  lb.  p.  1001.  3Ib.  p.  998. 


298 

very  titles  themselves  unto  Saints ;  sometimes  leaving  not  so  great 
difference  between  the  divine  Majesty,  or  glorious  Trinity,  and  other 
celestial  inhabitants,  as  the  heathens  did  between  their  greater  and 
lesser  gods."* 

Of  that  part  of  the  Romish  Liturgy  which  is  used 
for  persons  in  the  agony  of  death,  the  same  writer 
says: 

*' To  censure  this  part  of  their  Liturgy  as  it  deserves,  it  is  no 
prayer  but  a  charm,  conceived  out  of  the  dregs  and  relics  of  Hea- 
thenish idolatry  which  cannot  be  brought  forth  without  blasphemy, 
nor  be  applied  to  any  sick  soul  without  sorcery."  "  The  Church  of 
Rome,"  (continues  this  writer,  one  of  those  who  fought  side  by  side 
with,  Andrewes,  and  Hall,  and  Usher,  not  "  mincing  as  they  went,") 
"  compasseth  sea  and  land,  and  rangeth  through  all  the  courts  of 
the  great  King's  dominion,  with  gifts  in  her  hand  to  entice,  with  the 
sacrifice  of  praise  and  hymns  in  her  mouth  to  enchant,  the  chaste 
and  loyal  servants  of  the  Lord  unto  her  lust.  And  prostrates  her- 
self, evening  and  morning,  all  the  hours  of  day  and  night,  unto 
carved  Images  of  both  sexes ;  with  whom  her  Lord  and  husband 
hath  so  strictly  forbidden  her  familiarity.  And  yet,  in  her  pride  and 
cunning,  she  presumes  she  is  able  to  blear  that  all-seeing  eye — if  she 
have  but  leisure  to  wipe  her  lips  with  this  distinction  I  did  kiss  thy 
servants — only  w'ith  kisses  ofdulia,  not  with  Za<Ha." — (p.  989.) 

Bishop  Beveridge  gives  us  a  view  of  the  holiness 
of  those  ''whole  bodies  in  the  Church  of  Rome,"  es- 
pecially in  connection  with  their  many  prayers  and 
fastings : 

"  This  hath  been  the  ruin  of  many  souls.  As  our  Saviour  plain- 
ly shewelh  ;  when  speaking  of  the  severe  sect  of  the  Pharisees,  he 
saith  that  when  they  had  made  any  Proselyte  ;  that  is,  turned  a 
Publican,  or  an  harlot,  or  some  such  wicked  Person,  to  their  austere 
and  superstitious  way  of  living,  they  made  him  ten  times  more  a 
child  of  wrath  than  themselves.  Yet  this  is  what  is  so  much  mis- 
taken for  conversion  amongst  us  ;  yea,  and  amongst  the  Papists  too, 
who  speak  and  boast  much  of  such  kind  of  converts  as  these;  who 


Jackson's  Works,  p.  981. 


299 


having  lived  many  years  in  gross  sins"  (Sin  after  Baptism,)  "  af- 
terwards being  weary  of  them,  to  make  satisfaction  as  they  think 
for  their  former  lives,  undertake  some  tedious  pilgrimage,  or  else  enter 
into  a  Monastery,  and  there  spend  the  rest  of  their  time  in  Whippings 
and  Scourgings,  in  a  constant  repetition  of  so  many  Pater  Xosfers 
and  Ave  Marias  every  day.  And  this  is  ichat  the  Papists  call 
Religion.  And  therefore  these  Houses  (Dr.  Pusey's  "  whole  bodies") 
are  called  Religious  Plouses  ;  these  Orders,  Reh'gious  Orders  ;  and 
such  persons,  Religious  Persons — whereas  a  man  may  do  all  this 
and  yet  be  as  far  from  God  as  ever.  What  cares  He  for  the  scourg- 
incr  of  our  bodies  ?  It  is  the  mortification  of  our  lusts  which  he  calls 
for.  Neither  doth  he  matter  ^all  the  Sacrifices  and  Oblations  that 
you  can  make  him,  so  much  as  one  sincere  act  of  Obedience  to  his 
Laws." — Beveridge's  Sermons,  No.  65, — also,  No.  88. 

If  the  good  Bishop  does  thus  characterise  the  ^'ma- 
ny  prayers  and  other  means  of  grace  which  Protes- 
tants have  relinquished,  but  the  Romish  Church  has 
retained,  he  also  speaks  of  the  fasting  mentioned  by 
Dr.  Pusey,  as  accounting  partly  for  her  superior  ho- 
liness. He  is  urging  a  true  Fast  in  Lent,  and  ex- 
plains his  meaning  by  saying,  ''^  Not  as  the  Papists, 
who,  abstaining  from  nothing  hut  Flesh,  aud  using  all 
sorts  of  other  the  most  delicious  Food  and  Wine,  do 
rather  feast  than  fast  in  Lent'^ — Sermons,  No.  S7. 
Again,  ''Not  fasting  on  Fish  and  Wine  and  Sweet- 
meats as  the  Papists  do'' — No.  8S. 

But  the  Jesuit  with  whom  Bishop  Stillingfleet 
reasoned,  had  made  precisely  such  an  assertion  of  the 
eminently  superior  holiness  of  the  Church  of  Rome, 
that  we  have  now  from  Dr.  Pusey;  to  which  the  learn- 
ed Prelate  thus  replied : 

"  Doth  it  lie  in  the  service  of  your  Religious  Votaries?  For  that 
is  the  great  part  of  the  conspicuous  piety  of  your  Church.  But  is 
this  indeed  the  bright  sunshine  of  your  Church,  that  there  are  so 
many  thousands  of  both  sexes  who  tie  themselves  by  perpetual  vows, 
never  to  be  dissolved  by  their  own  seeking,  (and  therefore  doubtless 


300 


pleasing  to  God,  whether  they  are  able  to  keep  them  or  no,)  and 
these  pray  (if  they  understand  what  they  say,)  and  sing  Divine 
Hymns  day  and  night,  which  you  say  is  a  strange  and  vnheard 
of  thing  among  Protestants?  VVhat,  that  men  and  women  (though 
not  in  Cloisters,)  pray  and  sing  Hymns  to  God?  No,  surely.  For 
as  the  devotion  of  our  Churches  is  more  grave  and  solemn,  so  it  is 
likewise  more  pious  and  intelligible.  You  -pray  and  sing,  but  how? 
Let  Erasmus  speak,  who  understood  your  praying  and  singing  well. 
Cantiuncularum,  clamorum,  murmurum  ac  homhorum  uhique  plus 
satis  est,  si  quid  ista  delectant  Superos.  Do  you  think  those  prayers 
and  hymns  are  pleasing  to  God,  which  lie  more  in  the  throat  than 
the  heart?  And  such  as  have  been  wise  and  devout  men  among 
yourselves  have  been  the  least  admirers  of  your  mimical,  uncouth, 
and  superstitious  devotions  ;  but  have  rather  condemned  them  as 
vain,  ludicrous  things  ;  and  wondered  (as  Erasmus  said)  what  they 
thought  of  Christ,  who  imagined  he  could  be  pleased  with  them. 
Are  these  then  the  glorious  parts  of  your  devotions,  your  prayers 
and  hymns?  If  this  be  the  only  excellency  of  your  devotion,  how 
much  are  you  out-done  by  the  ancient  PsalUani  and  Euchitce,  that 
spent  all  their  time  in  prayer,  and  yet  were  accounted  heretics  for 
their  pains  ?  Still  you  pray  and  sing  ;  but  to  whom  ?  to  Saints  and 
Angeli  often,  to  the  Virgin  Mary,  with  great  devotion,  and  most 
solemn  invocations  ;  but  to  God  himself,  very  sparingly  in  compari- 
son. If  this  then  be  the  warm  sunshine  of  your  devotions  we  had 
rather  use  such,  wherein  we  may  be  sure  of  God's  blessing  ;  which 
we  cannot  be  in  such  Prayers  and  Hymns  which  attribute  those 
honours  to  his  creatures,  which  belong  wholly  to  himself. 

But  you  not  only  sing  and  pray,  but  can  be  very  idle  too ;  and 
the  number  of  those  men  must  be  called  Religious  Orders,  and  the 
Garment  of  the  Church  is  said  by  you  to  he  embroidered  by  the 
variety  of  them.  And  are  these  indeed  the  ornaments  of  your 
Church,  when  those  who  had  any  modesty  left  were  ashamed  of 
them,  and  called  loud  for  a  Reformation  ?  Those  were  indeed  such 
gardens  wherein  it  were  more  worth  looking  for  useful  or  odorifer- 
ous flowers,  (as  you  express  it,)  than  for  Diogenes  to  find  out  an 
honest  man  in  his  crowd  of  citizens.  Therefore  the  main  things  we 
blame  in  the  Monastic  Institutions,  are  the  great  degeneracy  of  them 
in  all  respects  from  their  Primitive  Institutions,  the  great  snares 
which  the  consciences  of  such  as  are  engaged  in  them,  are  almost 
continually  exposed  to,  the  unusefulness  of  them  in  their  multitudes 


301 


to  the  Christian  world,  the  general  unserviceableness  of  the  persons 
who  live  in  them,  the  great  debaucheries  which  they  are  subject  to 
and  often  over-run  with  ;  and  if  these  be  the  greatest  ornaments  of 
your  Church's  Garments,  it  is  an  easy  matter  to  espy  the  spots 
which  she  hath  upon  her." — Stilhngfleel's  Grounds,  p.  336. 

Such  then  is  the  Church  to  which,  say  our  Ox- 
fordists,  "  there  will  ever  be  a  number  of  refined  and. 
affectionate  minds,  who,  disappointed  in  linding  full 
matter  for  their  devotional  feelings  in  the  English 
system,  as  at  present  conducted,  will,  through  human 
frailty,  betake  themselves.'" 

We  have  seen  that  the  horrible  evils  which  the 
old  Champions  of  Protestanism,  whom  we  have  just 
quoted,  so  strongly  exhibit  in  the  devotional  charac- 
ter and  personal  holiness  of  the  mass  of  Tvom.anists, 
such  as  idolatrous  Invocation  of  Saints  and  worship 
of  Images,  &c.  are  called,  in  Oxford  writings,  only 

iincatliolic  peculiarities,''  ^'incidental  corruptions  f' 
practical  grievances.'"  Now,  to  these  expressions, 
and  all  else  that  we  have  seen,  put  the  following  Ox- 
ford-account of  the  comparative  departure  from  primi- 
tive reliction,  in  the  Romish,  and  Protestant  Churches. 

"That  a  certain  cliange  in  objective  and  external  religion  has 
come  over  the  Latin  Church,  we  consider  to  he  a  plain  historical 
fact — a  change  indeed  not  so  great  as  common  Protestantism,  for 
that  involves  a  radical  change  of  inward  temper  and  principle,  as 
well,  as  indeed  its  adherents  are  sometimes  not  slow  to  remind  us ; 
but  a  change  sutTiciently  startling  to  recall  to  our  minds,  with  very- 
unpleasant  sensations,  the  awful  words,  "  Though  we  or  an  angel 
from  heaven,  preach  any  other  gospel  unto  you  than  that  you  have 
received,  let  him  be  accursed."- — Brit.  Critic,  Xo.  53. 


>  No.  71,  of  Tracts,  Am.  Ed.  vol.  iii.  p,  4. 

2  Archbishop  Laud  with  all  his  tendencies  to  a  Romish  externalism  in  the 
Church,  would  have  told  these  Apologists  for  Popery,  that  there  are  7iot  only 
doctrinal  errors  in  that  si/stem,  but  such  as  most  manifestly  endanger  salva- 
tion.   See  Relation  of  a  Conference,  &c.,  p.  147. 


302 


So  then  the  departure  from  primitive  truth  in  the 
Church  of  Rome  is  only  as  to  external  matters — 
while  that  in  common  Protestantism,  i.  e.  among-  the 
Ultra  Protestants  who,  Dr.  Pusey  says,  include  a 
large  portion  of  the  clergy  of  the  Church  of  England, 
is  radical,  a  change  of  principle,  a  change  which 
is  most  seriously  threatened,  at  least,  with  the  ana- 
thema pronounced  by  the  apostle  upon  the  preach- 
ers of  a  false  gospel — the  very  anathema,  with  which 
the  Church  of  Rome  has  invested  it. 

Now  what,  according  to  the  Oxford  Divines  them- 
selves are  these  certain  external  changes  which  reli- 
gion has  suffered  in  the  Latin  Church?  We  will 
take  an  account  of  some  of  them  from  Oxfordism  it- 
self The  follow^ing  specimens  are  given  by  the  writer 
of  No.  71,  of  the  Tracts,  as  fair  examples  of  Romanism. 

Romanism  teaches  that  the  Mass  is  a  sacrifice 
not  only  commemoratory  of  that  of  the  Cross,  but  al- 
so truly  and  properly  propitiatory  of  the  dead  and 
the  living,"  in  w^hich  there  is  ''a  true  and  real  death 
or  destruction  of  the  thing  sacrificed that  "the  ser- 
vants of  the  Blessed  Virgin  have  an  assurance,  mor- 
ally infallible,  that  they  shall  be  saved;"  that  "she 
can,  not  only  entreat  her  Son  for  the  salvation  of  her 
servants,  but  by  her  motherly  authority  command 
Him;"  that  her  power,  and  that  of  her  Son,  "is  all 
one,  she  being  by  Him,  herself  omnipotent;"  that 
"  she  approaches  the  tribunal  of  divine  Majesty,  not 
asking,  but  commanding, — not  a  handmaid,  but  a 
Mistress." — therefore  the  Church  prays,  '  Monstra  te 
€sse  Matrem,^  as  if  saying  to  the  Virgin,  supplicate 
for  us  after  the  manner  of  a  command,  and  with  a 
mother's  authority.  Again,  the  Romish  Church, 
*' promises  salvation  to  mere  Attrition,  (that  is,  sor- 


303 


row  for  sin  arising  from  fear  of  punishment,)  on  the 
ground  that  real  Contrition,  (that  is,  hearty  sorrow 
for  sin,  proceeding  from  the  love  of  God,  above  all 
things,  and  joined  with  a  firm  purpose  of  amend- 
ment,) is  to  be  found  in  very  few;  and  hence  dedu- 
ces the  necessity  of  an  easier  way  for  the  salvation  of 
men  in  general."    Only  objective,  external  changes ! ! 

We  have  now  seen  the  real  value  of  the  holiness 
prevalent  in  the  Church  of  Rome,  and  of  those  means 
of  grace  for  its  promotion  which  she  has  been  so  wise 
as  to  retain,  and  Protestants  are  so  foolish  as  to  re- 
ject. We  have  seen  especially  the  value  of  those 
means,  and  of  their  consequent  fruits  of  holiness,  in 
those  whole  bodies,"  those  monastic  bodies  in  the 
Church  of  Rome,  to  which  Dr.  Pusey  especially  di- 
rects us.  And  to  get  a  more  correct  view  of  the  le- 
gitimate tendency  of  those  means  of  grace  and  of  the 
unmodified  character  of  that  holiness,  we  have  gone, 
where,  of  course,  Romanism  would  have  us  go,  to 
countries  where  Protestantism  has  not  interfered 
with  the  entire  carrying  out,  and  the  full  working  of 
what  w^e  are  led  to  suppose  is  the  genuine,  ancient 
Catholic  system.  And  there  w^e  have  seen^  what  Dr. 
Pusey  calls  in  this  connection,  the  ripening  of  the 
seed  of  life  in  the  heart" — there  we  have  seen  the 
sort  of  holiness,  and  that  height  of  holiness,  devo- 
tion, self-denial,  and  love  of  God,"  which  we  are 
told  "whole  bodies  of  men  in  the  Church  of  Rome 
have  arrived  at,"  and  which  is  rarely  to  be  seen  in 
the  Apostolic  Church  of  England."^ 

•  The  followinpf  extravagant  praise  of  Romish  Monastic  Institutions  may  well 
be  noted  here — taken  from  the  Oxford  writer  in  the  British  Critic  No.  51. 
"If  we  find  ourselves  obliged  to  acknowledge  that,  as  it  is  the  literal,  so 


304 


We  may  now  form  some  idea  of  the  holiness  on 
which  the  minds  of  these  writers  are  set,  and  which 
they  would  introduce  into  the  Anglican  Church. 
We  surely  do  not  charge  them  with  a  desire  to  in- 
troduce the  real  depravity  of  morals  and  the  awful 
idolatry  which  has  been  spoken  of  in  the  extracts  we 
have  given.  Doubtless  they  w^ould  have  purity  of 
life  and  sincerity  of  heart.  But  we  do  charge  them 
with  views,  and  tastes,  and  sympathies,  in  regard  to 
the  real  nature  of  Christian  holiness,  and  the  prac- 
tical duties  of  godliness,  which  lead  them  to  feel 
that,  amid  all  the  mummeries  of  Romanism,  they  are 
in  a  far  more  genial  climate  than  that  of  a  Protestant 
Church,  and  lead  them  to  look  with  such  extenuat- 
ing tenderness  upon  all  the  corruptions,  all  the  idola- 
tries, all  the  horrid  leprosies  of  Romish  monastic 
institutions,  where  Romanism  is  most  unwashed,  as 
so  little  incompatible  with  genuine  holiness,  that,  in 

it  is  the  truest  and  highest  form  in  which  obedience  to  the  precept  of  perfec- 
tion, of  selling  all  that  we  have  and  taking  up  our  cross,  can  be  expressed — 
then  let  us  not  sully  with  aflected  candor  and  faint  praise,  what  we  have  not 
courage  to  imitate — rather  let  us  be  thankful  that  such  an  exemplar  and  encou- 
ragement of  our  puny  strivings  has  been  vouchsafed  to  us."  The  same  writer, 
by  way  of  illustrating  the  meaning  of  the  phrase,  ''austere  life,"  and  "how  sim- 
ple and  unpretending  t7^7xe  Christian  mortification  is,"  gives  the  following  ex- 
amples of  austere  life  and  true  Christian  mortification,  from  St.  Francis  Borgia. 
**  One  day  when  his  broth  had  by  accident  been  made  with  bitter  herbs,  he  ate 
it  cheerfully  without  saying  a  word.  Being  asked  how  he  liked  it,  he  said,  '  I 
never  eat  any  thing  fitter  for  me!'  When  others  found  out  the  mistake,  and 
the  cook  in  great  confusion  asked  his  pardon:  'May  God  bless  and  reward  you/ 
said  he,  'you  are  the  only  person  amongst  all  my  brethren  that  knows  what 
suits  me  best.'  When  one  would  have  had  a  bed  warmed  for  St,  Charles  Bor- 
remeo,  he  said,  with  a  smile,  '  The  best  way  not  to  find  the  bed  cold,  is  to  go 
colder  to  bed  than  the  bed  is.'  " — Br.  Critic  No.  51,  p.  156.  We  have  no  ob- 
jection to  these  traits  of  humble  and  amiable  temper,  but  such  pin-scratches  of 
mortification  are  miserable  illustrations  of  what  is  meant  by  "come,  take  up  the 
cross  and  follow  me." 


305 


spite  of  them,  and  in  consequence  of  such  prayings 
and  fastings  as  are  there  practised,  and  such  other 
means  of  grace  as  the  unctions,  the  howings,  the  pen- 
ances,  the  crossings,  the  reverence  for  Saints'  Days, 
the  numerous  sacramental  signs  of  grace,  of  man's 
making,  united  with  the  great  disuse  of  all  pretence 
of  the  preaching  of  the  Gospel,  and  the  substitution 
of  the  legends  of  Saints,  there  is  in  those  monastic 
bodies  a  degree  of  eminent  holiness  rarely  to  be 
found  in  what,  these  writers  believe  to  be,  the  most 
pure  and  apostolic  of  all  Protestant  Churches. 

Let  such  view^s  of  holiness  be  spread  ;  let  them  be 
propagated  into  weaker  minds,  and  entrusted  to  less 
prudent  advocates;  let  the  irresponsible,  those  w^ho  are 
not  specially  interested  to  be  circumspect,  because 
not  the  heads  of  the  school,  be  charged  with  the  car- 
rying out  of  such  view^s ;  let  the  ignorant  get  hold  of 
them  and  the  imaginative,  then  what  sort  of  practical 
holiness  will  ensue !  what  leprosy  will  spread  ! 

In  the  present  leaders,  the  direct  tendency  of  such 
views  may  be  so  restrained  by  better  things,  within 
and  without,  so  hedged  in  by  previous  education, 
and  associations,  and  antagonist  views,  and  surround- 
ing circumstances,  as  never  to  proceed  to  any  such 
lengths;  but  with  other  hearts,  another  generation 
of  disciples,  under  a  more  advanced  state  of  Oxford- 
ism,  in  the  public  mind,  a  more  developed  organ  of 
veneration  for  ^Hhe  intrinsic  majesty  and  truth  which 
remain  in  the  Church  of  Rome,  amid  its  corrup- 
tions;" with  a  greater  heat  from  without  uniting 
with  the  present  bottom  heat,  in  the  forcing,  bed  of 
Oxfordism,  where  have  we  any  security  ?  The  earth 
is  full  of  seeds  which  have  never  germinated.  Give 

39 


306 


them  light,  and  air,  and  sun,  and  your  garden  will 
be  over-run  with  weeds.  Many  a  man  professes  en- 
tire renunciation  of  doctrines,  to  which  his  system 
directly  tends,  and  of  practices  of  which  his  princi- 
ples and  frame  of  mind  contain  already  the  swelling 
germ  and  essence.  Hazael  said,  with  sincere  indig- 
nation, thy  servant  a  dog,  that  he  should  do  this 
great  thing T''  But  the  germ  of  the  horrible  thing  was 
in  him,  nevertheless,  and  only  waited  the  exciting 
cause  to  spring  forth — and  soon  he  rvas  the  dog,  and 
had  done  it,  and  was  rvell  satisfied  rvith  the  deed. 
There  was  a  time  with  the  Church  of  Rome,  when, 
had  some  Elisha  settled  his  countenance  stedfastly 
until  he  was  ashamed,  and  wept"  at  the  foresight  of 
her  corruptions,  and  predicted  what  she  would  be 
guilty  of,  she  would  have  exclaimed,  with  equal  in- 
dignation and  sincerity.  Am  I  a  dog,  that  I  should 
ever  he  so  defiled?  But  then  even,  the  spirit  and  ten- 
dency were  in  her,  and  strong;  and  now  she  glories 
in  her  shame. 

''As  Original  Sin  is  the  Root;  while  any  particu- 
lar actual  sin  is  nothing  more  than  a  branch  spring- 
ing out  of  that  Root,  visible  from  invisible,  operative 
from  dormant;  so  the  Doctrine  of  Man's  Justifica- 
tion, hy  his  own  inherent  righteousness,  is  similarly 
the  Principal,  while  every  errant,  and  visible,  and  ac- 
tive peculiarity  of  Popery,  practice  from  theory,  de- 
velopment from  speculation,  is  ultimately  nothing 
more  than  a  derivative  accessory.  In  short,  the  re- 
sult of  the  Anglican  Doctrine,  or  rather,  the  perfectly 
harmonizing  result  of  the  Reformed  Doctrine  is  to 
make  Christ  alone,  in  full-orbed  glory,  and  in  un- 
divided raeritoriousness,  the  Saviour  of  sinful  man ; 


307 


while  the  whole  drift  and  object  and  necessary  ten- 
dency of  the  Romish  doctrine,  so  unhappily  taken 
up  by  Mr.  Knox,  (we  add,  by  Dr.  Pusey,  Mr.  New- 
man, &c.)  as  Scriptural  verity,  however  speciously 
disguised,  and  decently  wrapped  up  in  distinctions 
which  distinguish  not,  is  to  make  Church  and  Priest, 
and  Sacraments,  and  Saints,  and  Purgatory,  and 
Extreme  Unction,  and  Pilgrimage,  and  Penance, 
and  Ordinances,  and  Notions  without  end  and  with- 
out measure,  in  a  word,  Miserable  Man's  own  Self- 
Meriting  Righteousness,  a  college  of  Saviours,  if  not 
avowedly  supercessive  of  Christ,  yet,  to  say  the  least, 
concessive  with  him.'*^ 

TRADITION. 

We  have  reserved  all  that  we  have  now  to  say 
about  the  Oxford  error  of  Tradition  for  this  place, 
because,  though,  theoretically  it  would  seem  to  be 
a  starting  point  for  all  the  errors  of  doctrine,  w^e 
regard  it  as  in  practice  one  of  the  last  adopted. 
The  sinner  first  says  in  his  heart  there  is  no  God, 
and  then  he  goes  to  hunt  after  arguments  in  support 
of  his  atheism.  So  the  Romish  Church  first  declined 
into  great  errors,  and  got  upon  a  downward  current 
to  more  and  more,  and  then  invented  her  doctrine 
of  Tradition  for  a  defence.  So  it  is  with  Oxford- 
ism.  Its  doctrine  of  Tradition  is  not  practically 
the  source  of  all  its  other  peculiarities,  but  its  wall  of 
protection  for  them  against  the  Scriptures.  The  need 
was  first  felt,  and  then  the  cordon  sanitaire  was  drawn. 


'  Faber'e  Prim.  Doc.  of  Justific. 


308 


Into  the  argument  against  the  views  and  "uses  of 
Tradition,  as  developed  in  this  divinity,  we  have  no 
room,  nor  is  it  consistent  with  our  plan,  to  enter. 
We  are  only  shewing  developments.  That  Oxford- 
ism  is  throwing  itself  into  the  same  defence,  as  Ro- 
manism, for  the  same  purposes,  in  maintenance  of 
the  same  errors,  we  will  be  content  with  such  evi- 
dence as  may  appear  from  the  following  extracts 
from  the  late  Charge  of  the  Bishop  of  Calcutta,  the 
well  known  and  apostolic  Daniel  Wilson.  First, 
however,  let  a  oreneral  idea  of  what  was  thouo^ht  of 
the  comparative  authority  of  the  Scriptures  and  the 
Fathers,  by  the  Reformers  of  the  Anglican  Church, 
be  taken  from  the  following  extract  out  of  the  Con- 
ferences between  Bishops  Ridley  and  Latimer,  while 
in  prison,  "for  the  testimony  of  Jesus." 

"  But  what  (said  Latimer,)  is  to  be  said  of  the  Fathers?  How  are 
they  to  be  esteemed?  St.  Augustine  answers,  giving  this  rule  also, 
that  we  should  not,  therefore,  think  it  true,  because  they  say  so, 
though  they  ever  so  much  excel  in  holiness  or  learning  ;  unless  they 
are  able  to  prove  their  saying  by  the  Canonical  Scriptures,  or  by  a 
good  probable  reason;  meaning  that  to  be  a  probable  reason,  as  I 
think,  which  orderly  follows  upon  a  right  collection  and  gathering 
out  of  the  Scriptures. 

"  Let  the  papists  go  with  their  long  faith,  be  you  contented  with 
the  short  faith  of  the  saints,  which  is  revealed  unto  us  in  the  written 
word  of  God.  Adieu  to  all  Popish  fantasies,  Amen.  For  one  man, 
having  the  Scripture  and  good  reason  for  him,  is  more  to  be  es- 
teemed himself  alone,  than  a  thousand  such  as  they,  either  gathered 
together,  or  succeeding  one  another. 

"  The  Fathers  have  both  herbs  and  weeds,  and  papists  commonly 
gather  the  weeds  and  leave  the  herbs.  And  the  Fathers  speak  many 
times  more  vehemently — in  sound  of  words,  than  they  meant  in- 
deed, or  than  they  would  have  done,  if  they  had  forseen  what  sophis- 
tical wranglers  v/ould  have  succeeded  them. 


309 


Bishop  Wilson  thus  earnestly  warns  the  clergy 
of  his  vast  and  most  interesting  Diocese — 

*'It  is  to  me,  [  confess,  a  matter  of  surprise  and  shame,  that  in  the 
nineteenth  century  we  should  really  have  the  fundamental  position 
of  the  whole  system  of  Popery  re-asserted  in  the  bosom  of  that  very 
Church,  which  was  reformed  so  determinately  three  centuries  since 
from  this  self-same  evil,  by  the  doctrine,  and  labours,  and  martyr- 
dom of  Cranmer  and  his  noble  fellow-sufferers. 

'*  What !  are  we  to  have  all  the  fond  tenets  which  formerly  sprung 
from  the  traditions  of  men  re-introduced,  in  however  modified  a  form, 
amongst  us?  Are  we  to  have  a  refined  transubstantiation — the  Sa- 
craments, and  not  faith,  the  chief  means  of  salvation — a  confused 
and  uncertain  mixture  of  the  merits  of  Christ  and  inherent  grace  in 
the  matter  of  justification — remission  of  sins,  and  the  new  creation 
of  Christ  Jesus,  confined,  or  almost  confined,  to  Baptism — perpetual 
doubt  of  pardon  to  the  penitent  after  that  Sacrament — the  duty  and 
advantage  of  self-imposed  austerities — the  innocency  of  prayers  for 
the  dead,  and  similar  tenets  and  usages  which  generate  *a  spirit  of 
bondage'^ — again  asserted  amongst  us?  And  is  the  paramount  au- 
thority of  the  inspired  Scriptures,  and  the  doctrine  of  the  grace  of 
God  in  our  justification  by  the  alone  merits  of  Jesus  Christ,  which  re- 
poses on  that  authority,  to  be  again  weakened  and  obscured  by  such 
human  superadditions  ;  and  a  new  edifice  of '  will-worship,'  and  '  vol- 
untary humility,'  and  the  'rudiments  of  the  world?'  as  the  Apostle 
speaks,  to  be  erected  once  more  in  the  place  of  the  simple  Gospel  of 
a  crucified  Saviour  ? 

*♦  My  language  is  strong,  my  Reverend  Brethren,  but  I  think 
you  will  agree  with  me  that  it  is  not  too  strong  for  the  occasion. 
You  shall  judge  for  yourselves.  I  select  as  a  specimen  of  the  whole 
system,  and  what  forms  its  basis,  so  far  as  I  can  understand,  a  pas- 
sage from  the  Sermon  on  Tradition,  by  the  amiable,  learned  and  ac- 
complished Professor  of  Poetry  in  the  University  of  Oxford. 


1  **  I  confine'myself  to  topics  of  which  no  dubious  intimations  have  been  given. 
I  say  nothing  of  v?hat  may  possibly  follov^r — the  prohibition  of  the  unfettered  use 
of  the  Scriptures— purgatory — the  veneration  of  relics— prayer  to  the  Virgin 
Mary — the  intercession  of  Saints — works  of  supererogation — monastic  vows 
— the  celibacy  of  the  Clergy,  &c.  &c. 


310 


*'  '  With  relation  to  the  supreme  authority  of  inspired  Scripture,' 
says  the  Professor  of  Poetry,  '  it  stands  thus — Catholic  tradition 
teaches  revealed  truth,  Scripture  proves  it ;  Scripture  is  the  docu- 
ment of  faith,  Tradition  the  witness  of  it;  the  true  creed  is  the 
Catholic  interpretation  of  Scripture,  or  scripturally  proved  Tradition  ; 
Scripture  by  itself  teaches  mediately,  and  proves  decisively  ;  Scrip- 
ture and  Tradition  taken  together  are  the  joint  rule  of  faith.' 

<•  So  then,  Tradition  is  the  primary,  and  Holy  Scripture  the  se- 
condary teacher  of  divine  truth — so  then  we  are  to  search  the  in- 
spired Word  of  God,  not  as  the  one  authoritative,  adequate  rule  of 
faith,  but  as  the  document  of  what  this  Tradition  leaches — we  are  to 
study  the  Scriptures,  not  in  order  to  ascertain  simply  God's  revealed 
will,  but  to  prove  Tradition  by  Scriptural  evidence — and  the  stand- 
ard of  revelation  is  no  longer  the  Bible  alone,  that  is,  the  inspired 
Word  of  the  Eternal  God  in  its  plain  and  obvious  meaning,  but 
*  Scripture  and  Tradition  taken  together  are  the  joint  rule  of  faith.' 

"All  this  is  surely  sufficiently  alarming;  but  it  becomes  incompa- 
rably more  so,  when  we  learn  with  what  latitude  the  word  Tradi- 
tion is  understood.  It  includes,  as  we  gather  from  the  other  repeated 
statements  of  the  learned  author,  'unwritten  as  well  as  written'  tra- 
ditions, '  certain  remains  or  fragments  of  the  treasure  of  Apostolical 
doctrines  and  Church  rules;'  in  other  words,  an  oral  law,  '  inde- 
pendent of,  and  distinct  from  the  truths  which  are  directly  Scriptu- 
ral;'  which  traditions  are  to  be  received  'apart  from  all  Scripture 
evidence,  as  traditionary  or  common  laws  ecclesiastical.'  So  that  it 
appears  that  Scripture,  axd  u^-wRITTEX,  as  well  as  written 

TRADITION,  ARE,  TAKEN  TOGETHER,  THE  JOINT  RULE  OF  FAITH. 

"  I  appeal  to  you.  Reverend  Brethren,  whether  we  have  not  here 
a  totally  false  principle  asserted  as  to  the  Rule  of  Faith.  I  ap- 
peal to  you,  whether  the  very  reading  of  this  statement  is  not  enough 
to  condemn  it.  1  appeal  to  you,  whether  the  blessed  and  all-perfect 
Book  of  God,  is  not  thus  depressed  into  a  kind  of  attendant  and  ex- 
positor of  Tradition.  I  appeal  to  you,  whether  this  is  not  to  magni- 
fy the  comments  of  men  above  the  inspired  words  of  the  Holy  Ghost. 
I  appeal  to  you,  whether  this  is  not  to  make  Tradition  an  integral 
part  of  the  canon  of  faith,  and  so  to  undermine  the  whole  fabric  of 
the  Reformation,  or  rather  of  'the  glorious  Gospel  of  the  blessed 
God,'  which  that  Reformation  vindicated  and  affirmed. 


311 


"lam  as  far  as  possible  from  supposing  that  the  various  pious  and 
learned  authors,  to  whose  sentiments,  and  especially  one  of  them,  I 
am  alluding,  have  any  such  intention.  I  am  sure  they  have  not. 
But  the  tendency  of  the  system  is  not  in  my  view  the  less  dangerous. 
Such  will  and  must  be,  1  think,  the  general  effect  of  its  diffusion 
amongst  a  multitude  of  young  divinity  students,  with  comparatively 
little  experience,  and  too  apt  to  follow  the  new  theories  of  popular 
and  distinguished  persons. 

"  And  wherefore  this  deviation  from  our  old  Protestant  doctrine 
and  language;  why  this  false  principle;  why  this  new  school,  as  it 
were,  of  Divinity?  Ancient  testimony  in  its  proper  place,  who  had 
undervalued?  The  dignity  and  grace  of  the  Sacraments,  who  had 
denied?  The  study  of  primitive  antiquity,  who  had  renounced? 
The  witness  of  the  early  Fathers,  who  had  disparaged?  Wherefore 
weaken,  then,  by  pushing  beyond  its  due  bearing,  the  argument 
which  all  writers  of  credit  in  our  Church  had  delighted  to  acknow- 
ledge ? 

"  The  testimony  of  the  Apostolical  and  primitive  ages,  for  exam- 
ple, to  the  genuineness,  and  authenticity,  and  Divine  inspiration  of 
the  Canonical  Books  of  the  New  Testament,  as  of  the  Jewish  Church 
to  those  of  the  Old,  who  had  called  in  question?  Or  who  had 
doubted  the  incalculable  importance  of  the  witness  of  the  universal 
ancient  Church  at  the  Council  of  Nice,  to  the  broad  fact  of  the  faith 
of  the  whole  Christian  world,  from  the  days  of  the  Apostles  to  that 
hour,  in  the  mysteries  of  the  adorable  Trinity  and  of  the  Incarna- 
tion, as  there  rehearsed  and  recognized.  Or  who  called  in  question 
the  other  matters  of  fact  which  are  strengthened  by  Christian  anti- 
quity, as  the  Divine  authority  and  perpetual  obligation  of  the  Lord's 
Day — the  institution  and  perpetuity  of  the  two,  and  only  two  Chris- 
tian Sacraments — the  right  of  the  infants  of  the  faithful  to  the  bless- 
ings of  holy  Baptism — the  Apostolical  usage  of  Confirmation — the 
permanent  separation  of  a  body  of  men  for  sacred  services — the 
duty  of  willing  reverence  from  the  people  for  them — the  threefold 
rank  of  Ministers  in  Christ's  Church — the  use  of  Liturgies— the  ob- 
servation of  the  festivals  of  our  Lord's  birth,  resurrection,  ascension, 
and  gift  of  the  Holy  Ghost — with  similar  points;  to  which  may  be 
added,  their  important  negative  testimony  to  the  non-existence  of 
any  one  of  the  peculiar  doctrines  and  claims  of  the  modern  Court 


3ia 

and  Church  of  Rome.  These  and  similar  facts  we  rejoice  to  ac- 
knowledge, as  fortified  by  pure  and  uncorrupted  primitive  tradition 
or  testimony. 

"  We  rejoice  also  to  receive,  with  our  own  Protestant  Reformed 
Church,  the  universal  witness  of  the  Catholic  Fathers  and  ancient 
Bishops,  expressed  in  the  three  Creeds,  as  a  most  important  method  of 
guarding  the  words  of  revelation  from  the  artful  ambiguities  of  here- 
tics, and  as  rules  and  terms  of  communion  ;  just  as  we  acknowledge 
our  modern  Articles,  Liturgy,  and  Homilies  for  the  same  purpose. 
We  rejoice  again  in  tracing  back  almost  the  whole  of  our  sublime 
and  Scriptural  Liturgy  to  a  far  higher  period  than  the  rise  of  Popery 
— to  the  Primitive  ages  of  the  Church  in  our  own  and  every  other 
Christian  country.  We  thus  admit,  in  its  fullest  sense,  for  its  pro- 
per ends,  the  rule  of  Vincentius  Lirinensis — Quod  semper,  quod  ab 
omnibus,  quod  ubique  traditum  est. 

"And  we  receive  such  tradition  for  this  one  reason — because  it 
deserves  the  name  of  just  and  proper  evidence.  It  is  authentic 
testimony.  It  is  a  part  of  the  materials  from  which  even  the  exter- 
nal evidences  of  Christianity  itself  are  derived.  It  furnishes  the 
most  powerful  historical  arguments  in  support  of  our  faith.  It  is 
amongst  the  proofs  of  our  holy  religion. 

"  But  evidence  is  one  thing ;  the  rule  of  belief  another.  Not  for 
one  moment  do  we,  on  any  or  all  these  grounds,  confound  the  histo- 
ry and  evidences  of  the  divinely  inspired  rule  of  faith,  with  that  Rule 
itself.  Not  for  one  moment  do  we  place  Tradition  on  the  same 
level  with  the  all-perfect  Word  of  God.  Not  for  one  moment  do  we 
allow  it  any  share  in  the  standard  of  revealed  truth.  Scripture  and 
Tradition  taken  together  are  not — we  venture  to  assert — '  the  joint 
rule  of  faith  but  '  Holy  Scripture  containeih  all  things  necessary  to 
salvation ;  so  that  whatever  is  not  read  therein,  nor  may  be  proved 
thereby,  is  not  to  be  required  of  any  man ;  that  it  should  be  believed 
as  an  article  of  faith.'  And  Tradition  is  so  far  from  being  of  co-ordi- 
nate authority,  that  even  the  Ecclesiastical  writers  who  approach 
the  nearest  to  them,  and  are  read  in  our  Churches — which  not  one 
of  the  Fathers  is — '  for  example  of  life,  and  instruction  of  manners  ;* 
are  still,  as  being  uninspired,  not  to  be  applied  to  establish  any  one 
doctrine  of  our  religion. 

"  Against  this  whole  system,  then,  as  proceeding  upon  a  most 


313 


FALSE  AND  DA>-GEROUS  PRi>'ciPLE,  and  differing  from  the  generally 
received  Protestant  doctrine,  I  beg  Reverend  Brethren,  most  respect- 
fully  to  caution  you.  I  enter  niy  solemn  protest  against  the  testimo- 
ny of  the  Fathers  to  any  number  of  facts,  being  constituted  a  'joint 
rule  of  faith.'  1  protest  against  their  w  itness  to  the  meaning  of  cer- 
tain capital  series  of  texts  on  the  fundamental  truths  of  the  Gospel 
being  entitled  to  the  reverence  only  due  to  the  authoritative  Revela- 
tion itself.  I  protest  against  the  salutary  use  made  of  the  testimony 
of  primitive  writers  by  our  Church,  as  a  safeguard  against  heresy 
and  an  expression  of  her  view  of  the  sense  of  the  Holy  Scriptures,  be- 
ing placed  on  a  level  with  the  blessed  Scriptures  themselves — that 

is,  I  PROTEST  AGAI>-ST  A  MERE  RULE  OF  COMMU>*ION  BEI>'G  MADE 
A  RULE  OF  FAITH. ^ 


1  In  the  Appendix  to  his  Charge,  Bishop  Wilson  thus  accurately  and  succinct- 
ly states  the  precise  question  between  Oxford  Divinity  and  its  opposers,  on  the 
subject  of  Tradition  : 

"  The  question  to  be  determined,  is  not  whether  the  witness  of  the  early  Fa- 
thers to  the  facts  of  Christianity,  is  of  the  greatest  importance — this  is  admitted. 
Nor  is  it  the  question,  whether  their  testimony  to  the  broad  matter  of  fact,  as  to 
the  faith  of  the  universal  Church  at  the  Council  of  Nice,  in  the  doctrines  of  the 
Holy  Trinity  and  the  Incarnation  of  our  Lord,  strengthens  and  sustains  the  in- 
terpretation of  the  orthodox  Church  in  subsequent  ages — all  this  we  admit. 
Nor  is  it  the  question,  whether  our  Church  in  her  authorized  formularies,  espe- 
cially in  the  three  Creeds,  makes  this  testimony  a  rule  and  term  of  Communion 
— this  is  most  fully  conceded.  Nor  is  it  the  question,  whether  all  the  weight  and 
influence  which  a  sound  criticism  will  ever  give  to  writers  situated  like  the  Fa- 
thers, should  be  constantly  granted  them,  especially  where  a  consent  of  them 
can  be  shown — that  is,  where  the  Quod  semper,  quod  ubique,  quod  ab  omnibus 
traditum  est,  applies — this  is  cheerfully  allowed. 

"  But  the  question  is,  Whether  Scripture  and  Tradition,  written  and  unwrit- 
ten, taken  together,  are  the  joint  rule  of  faith. — Whether  Catholic  Tradition 
comes  first  as  the  teacher  of  revealed  truth,  and  Scripture  comes  next,  to  prove 
it. — Whether  the  true  Creed  is  scripturally-proved  Tradition,  or  Catholic  tra- 
dition supported  by  the  Scriptures. 

The  following  plain  declaration  of  sober  truth,  from  Dr.  Jackson,  is  well 
to  the  point. 

"  The  second  addition  made  by  the  Roman  Church  unto  the  ancient  Canon 
of  Faith,  is  a  transcendent  one,  and  illimited  ;  and  that  is,  the  making  of  eccle- 
siastical tradition  to  be  an  integral  part  of  the  Canon  of  faith  ;  the  ad- 
dition of  unwritten  tradition,  as  part  of  the  infallible  rule,  doth  undermine  the 

structure  of  faith   We  reject  ecclesiastical  tradition  from  being  any 

40 


314 

"Yes  you  may  rely  upon  it,  Reverend  Brethren,  that  this  *  joint 
rule  of  faith'  will  never  long  consist  with  the  simplicity  of  the  Gos- 
pel. I  speak  with  fear  and  apprehension,  lest  I  should  in  the  least 
degree  overstate  the  case.  I  suspect  not — I  repeat,  I  suspect  not — 
the  Reverend  and  learned  Leaders  of  the  least  intention  or  idea  of 
forwarding  the  process  which  I  think  is  in  fact  going  on.  But  the 
plague  is  begun.   A  false  principle  is  admitted  in  the  rule  of 

FAITH,  AND  IS  ALREADY  AT  WORK. 

"  Already  an  amplitude  is  given,  as  we  have  seen,  to  the  word 
Tradition,  which  may  include  any  thing  and  every  thing,  and  there- 
fore justly  awakens  our  increased  alarm.  Already  texts  of  inspired 
Scripture  are  weakened  or  contracted  to  the  narrowest  and  most 
doubtful  sense.  Already  are  appeals  made  to  documents  which  were 
superseded  by  the  more  purely  evangelical  formularies  of  our  pre- 
sent Book  of  Common  Prayer,  with  its  Articles  and  Homilies,  at  the 
definitive  settlement  of  our  reformed  Church  ;  and  a  desire  not  ob- 
scurely expressed  that  our  Reformation  had  retained  more  of  the 
Traditionary  model. 

"  All  this  is  but  too  natural.  The  false  principle  will  go  on  '  eat- 
ing as  doth  a  cancer,'  if  things  proceed  as  they  now  do.  The  in- 
spired Word  of  God  will  be  imperceptibly  neglected;  and  the  Tra- 
ditions of  men  will  take  its  place.  The  Church  will  supersede  the 
Bible.  The  Sacraments  will  hide  the  glory  of  Christ.  Self-righte- 
ousness will  conceal  the  righteousness  of  God.  Traditions  and  Fa- 
thers will  occupy  the  first  place,  as  we  see  in  the  sermons  of  the 
chief  Roman  Catholic  authors  of  every  age,  and  Christ  come  next  or 
not  at  all ;  and  a  lowered  tone  of  practical  religion  will  come  in. 

"  The  whole  system,  indeed,  goes  to  generate,  as  I  cannot  but 
think,  an  inadequate  and  superficial,  and  superstitious  religion.  The 
mere  admissions  of  the  inspiration  and  paramount  authority  of  Holy 
Scripture  will  soon  become  a  dead  letter;   due  humiliation  before 


part  of  the  Rule  of  faith  ....  This  unanimous  tradition^ecciesiastic,  was  not  in 

those  times  held  for  any  proper  part  of  the  Rule  of  faith   Thope  the 

same  Scripture  was  (in  Vincentius' judgment,)  a  Rule  of  faith  neither^incom- 
plete  for  its  quantity,  nor  insufficient  for  its  quality;^  a  /ule  every  day  compe- 
tent for  ending  controversies  in  religion,  without  the  assumption  either  of  tradi- 
tion or  decrees  of  Council,  as  any  associates  or  homogeneal  parts  of  the  same 
rule." 


315 


God  under  a  sense  of  the  unutterable  evil  of  sin,  will  be  less  and  less 
understood  ;  a  conviction  of  the  need  of  the  meritorious  righteous- 
ness of  the  incarnate  Saviour,  as  the  alone  ground  of  justification, 
will  be  only  faintly  inculcated ;  the  operations  of  the  Holy  Ghost 
in  creating  man  anew,  will  be  more  and  more  forgotten ;  the  nature 
of  those  good  works  which  are  acceptable  to  God  in  Christ,  will  be 
lost  sight  of;  and  'another  Gospel'  framed  on  the  traditions  of  men 
will  make  way  for  an  apostasy  in  our  own  Church,  as  in  that  of 
Rome — unless,  indeed,  the  evangelical  piety,  the  reverence  for  Holy 
Scripture,  the  theological  learning,  and  the  forethought  and  fidelity 
of  our  Divines  of  dignified  station  and  established  repute  at  home 
INTERPOSE  BY  DISTINCT  CAUTIONS  TO  PREVENT  IT — as  they  are  be- 
ginning to  interpose,  and  as  I  humbly  trust  they  will  still  more  de- 
cisively do."    Bishop  Wilson's  Charge,  1838,  pp.  58—76. 


CHAPTER  IX. 


THE  DOCTRINE  OF  OXFORD  DIVINITY  AS  TO  THE  RIGHTEOUSNESS 
OF  JUSTIFICATION,  AND  THE  NATURE  AND  OFFICE  OF  FAITH, 
COMPARED  WITH  THAT  OF  THE   ANGLICAN  CHURCH. 

Matter  of  mortification  that  such  comparison  is  necessary — A  general  account 
of  the  doctrinal  standards  of  the  Anglican  Church — Statement  of  the  ques- 
tions investigated  in  this  Chapter — Arguments  from  the  assertion  of  Dr. 
Pusey  that  the  Article  of  Justification  says  nothing  of  what  Justification 
consists  in — The  Articles  xi,  xii,  and  xiii — Exposition  of  the  xi,  from  the 
Language  of  its  Authors  elsewhere — From  its  own  peculiar  precision  as  to 
the  office  of  faith — Homilies  quoted  and  expounded — Seven  difficulties  into 
which  the  Oxford  doctrines  are  brought  by  the  language  of  the  Articles  and 
Homilies — Each  made  use  of  as  an  evidence  against  the  consistency  of  that 
Divinity  with  that  of  the  Anglican  Church. 

It  is  indeed  a  matter  of  deep  mortification  that,  at 
this  late  age  of  the  reformed  Church  of  England,  we 
are  called  upon  to  show  that  her  doctrine  of  Justifi- 
cation, so  prominent  in  the  controversies  waged  in 
the  time  of  her  emancipation  from  Romanism,  so 
carefully  defined  and  guarded  against  all  possibility 
of  mistake  in  her  standard  writings,  and  so  long  re- 
garded by  all  as  identical  with  that  of  all  the  Re- 
formed Churches  of  Europe,  is  not  substantially  the 
same  with  the  main  doctrine  of  that  very  system  of 
Romish  error  against  which  she  protested  so  earn- 
estly. 

But  so  it  is.  The  doctrine  of  this  Oxford  divinity, 
which  we  have  seen  to  be  just  the  Romish  doctrine, 
boldly  claims  to  be  also  the  Anglican  doctrine ;  the 
doctrine  of  the  standards  and  standard  divines,  of  the 
Anglican  Church. 


318 


On  this  singular  pretension,  issue  is  now  joined. 

On  no  point  of  doctrinal  confession  are  the  declara- 
tions of  the  Anglican  Church  more  full,  more  reiter- 
ated, or  more  earnest  than  that  of  Justification. 

There  is  first,  an  Article,  entitled,  Of  the  Justifi- 
cation  of  Man,'"  in  which  the  doctrine  is  summarily 
declared  in  these  words  :  We  are  accounted  righte- 
ous before  God,  only  for  the  merit  of  our  Lord  and 
Saviour  Jesus  Christ,  by  Faith,  and  not  for  our  orvn 
works  and  deserving s''    And  then  on  the  subject  of 

our  orvn  works  and  deservings,'^  as  rejected  from 
Justification,  we  have  two  more  Articles;  the  one 
entitled,  Of  Works  done  before  Justification,^' 
which  excludes  them  from  all  efficacy  to  make  men 
meet  to  receive  grace,  or  deserve  it  "  of  congruity,^' 
because  not  pleasant  to  God,  forasmuch  as  they 
spring  not  of  Faith  in  Jesus  Christ,  and  have  the  na- 
ture of  sin  the  other,  of  Works  rvhich  are  the 
Fruits  of  Faith,  and  follow  after  Justification;^^ 
declaring  that  though  the  necessary  results  of  a  live- 
ly faith,  and  pleasing  to  God  in  Christ,  they  "  ca7i- 
not put  away  our  sins'' 

Thus  have  three  distinct  Articles  been  expended 
on  this  subject. 

But  the  Framers  of  our  Confession  were  not  con- 
tent with  this.  They  regarded  the  doctrine  of  Jus- 
tification, by  which,  of  unjust,  we  are  made  just  be- 
fore God,"  as  ^^the  strong  rock  and  foundation  of 
Christian  religion The  history  of  all  the  subtle 
devices  by  which  Satan  had  in  every  age  endea- 
voured to  undermine  that  "rock,"  was  before  them. 


•  Homily  of  Salvation,  Part  ii. 


319 


The  war,  then  at  its  height,  with  the  corruptions  of 
Romanism ;  the  Council  of  Trent,  then  sitting  and 
fulminating  its  Anathemas  against  the  holders  of  the 
truth,  secured  their  due  remembrance  of  that  histo- 
ry. It  taught  them  the  necessity  of  greater  minute- 
ness of  declaration  than  was  contained  in  the  Arti- 
cles above  named.  Homilies  were  therefore  used  for 
larger  exposition.  The  Article  on  Justification  re- 
fers the  reader  for  a  fuller  view  of  the  faith  of  the 
Church,  to  the  Homily  of  Justification''  The  Ho- 
mily entitled  "  On  the  salvation  of  manlxind,  hy  only 
Christ  our  Samour,'''  is,  by  universal  acknowledg- 
ment, the  one  referred  to ;  though  it  is  not  known 
by  what  means,  or  when,  its  title  was  changed  from 
that  given  in  the  Article.  But  this  is  not  the  only 
homiletic  exposition  bearing  upon  the  subject.  The 
doctrine  of  the  Church  on  Faith,  and  also  on  Good 
Worlis,  is  essentially  connected  ^\ith  that  of  Justifi- 
cation. We  have  tlierefore  a  standard  Homily  on 
each  ;  so  that  there  are  three  Homilies  or  Sermons, 
each  in  three  parts,  all  asserted  in  our  35th  Article 
to  "  contain  a  godly  and  wholesome  doctrine  all  of 
which  together  compose  and  make  a  treatise  on  Jus- 
tification, and  all  of  which  are  to  be  referred  to  for 
explaining  the  sense  of  the  Church  in  her  Article  on 
that  subject."' 

Now,  with  these  combined  and  minute  exposi- 
tions, so  remarkable  for  precision  of  language  and 
perspicuity  of  illustration,  formed  too  vriX\\  particu- 
lar reference  to  the  very  points  on  which  errors  have 
arisen,  it  would  seem  impossible  that  the  sense  of 
the  Church  should  be  mistaken. 


'Ridley's  Life  of  Ridley,  p.  ?44. 


320 


But  a  recollection  of  the  particular  models  and 
men,  most  referred  to  in  the  construction  of  these  for- 
mularies, as  well  as  of  those  particular  corruptions  of 
the  truth  against  which  they  were  aimed,  if  it  may 
not  make  their  meaning  more  obvious,  will  at  least 
render  it  more  emphatic  and  impressive. 

Of  the  Articles  which  were  framed  in  1551,  and 
which,  on  the  subjects  involved  in  this  discussion, 
the  chancres  in  the  reio^n  of  Elizabeth  did  not  materi- 
ally  affect,  ''Archbishop  Cranmer  must  be  consid- 
ered as  the  sole  compiler."^  Of  the  first  book  of  Ho- 
milies, with  which  chiefly  we  are  concerned  in  this 
w^ork,  the  same  Reformer  is  believed,  by  the  best 
authorities,  to  have  been  the  chief  composer,  as  was 
Jewell  of  the  second.  But  the  Homilies  on  Salva- 
tion, Faith,  and  Good  works,  to  which  the  Article  of 
Justification  is  especially  related,  are  without  a  ques- 
tion ascribed  exclusively  to  Cranmer.^  Now  it  is 
well  known  that  a  frequent  correspondence  on  the 
most  important  matters  of  the  Reformation  was  kept 
up  between  him  and  the  continental  Divines,  espe- 
cially Melancthon.  The  latter  was  particularly  con- 
sulted on  the  subject  of  the  Articles,  and  is  known 
to  have  urged,  for  a  model,  the  Confession  of  Augs- 
burgh.^  Hence  the  Articles  of  the  English  Church 
chiefly  derive  their  origin  from  Lutheran  Formu- 


1  Soame's  Hist,  of  the  Reformation,  vol.  iii.  648.  Strype's  Life  of  Cranmer, 
b.  ii.  c.  xxvii. 

2  Tomline's  Elements  of  Theology,  ii.  535.  Soame,  iii.  63.  Todd  on  the 
39  Art.  pref.  p.  xi.    Strype's  Cranmer,  b.  ii.  c.  iii. 

3  Strype's  Life  of  Cranmer,  b.  iii.,  c.  xxiv.  A  son  of  Justus  Jonas,  the  friend 
and  fellow-labourer  of  Luther  and  Melancthon,  resided  with  Cranmer  and  seems 
to  have  been  his  chief  medium  of  correspondence  with  the  Lutherans. — Law- 
rence's Bampton  Lectures,  p.  210. 


321 


lanes.  Some  of  them  are  drawn  from  the  Confes- 
sion of  Augsburgh,  others  from  that  of  Wittemberg, 
known  as  the  Saxon  Confession,  and  professedly 
drawn  up  in  strict  accordance  with  that  of  Augs- 
burgh."^  ^'The  truth  of  the  matter  is,  (says  Le 
Bas,)  that  the  EngUsh  Reformers  framed  their  Arti- 
cles not  as  a  wall  of  partition  between  Protestant 
and  Protestant,  bnt  as  a  bulwark  against  the  perver- 
sions with  which  the  scholastic  theology  had  disfigured 
the  simplicity  of  the  Gospel. — The  only  key  there- 
fore which  can  readily  unlock  the  true  sense  of  the 
Articles,  is  a  knowledge,  not  of  the  opinions  which 
afterwards  rent  the  Protestant  community  into  frag- 
ments,— but  of  the  papal  doctrines  against  which  the 
main  struofSfle  of  the  reformers  had  been  carried  on 
from  the  very  first."  ''If  any  person  could  but  sit 
down  to  the  perusal  of  our  Articles,  in  utter  forget- 
fulness  that  Europe  had  ever  been  seriously  agitated 
by  the  Calvinistic  dispute,  and  with  nothing  in  his 
mind  but  the  controversy  between  the  Reformed 
Churches  and  the  Church  of  Rome,  he  would  then 
clearly  perceive  that  those  Articles  were  constructed 
for  the  most  part  on  the  Lutheran  system  and  prin- 
cipally as  a  rampart  against  the  almost  unchristian 
theology  of  the  schools."^  This  was  emphatically 
the  case  as  respects  the  doctrine  now  under  consi- 
deration. Thus  we  have  two  very  important  auxilia- 
ries, in  case  of  any  difficulty  in  understanding  the 
precise  meaning  of  our  standard  compositions  on  this 
subject.    The  writings  of  Luther  and  his  associates, 

'  Soame,  iii.  p.  652. 
2  Le  Bas'  Life  of  Cranmer.  See  also  Lawrence's  Bampton  Lectures;  Blunt's 
Reformation  in  England. 
41 


322 


especially  of  Melancthon,  together  with  the  Augs- 
burgh  Confession,  which  the  latter  composed,  from 
materials  prepared  by  Luther,  are  one  of  them.  The 
doctrines  of  the  Church  of  Rome,  on  the  subject  of 
Justification,  are  another,  and  not  the  least  to  be  re- 
lied on. 

Now  there  is  no  necessity  of  going  into  an  inves- 
tigation of  the  doctrine  of  the  Church  in  reference 
to  all,  or  many,  of  the  particular  points  which,  as  we 
have  showed,  are  embraced  in  Oxford  Divinity.  All 
depend  upon  tw^o  main  questions,  viz : 

1.  What  is  the  righteousness  whereby  we  are  to 
be  justified  or  made  acceptable  before  God  ? 

2.  What  is  the  mode  or  means  by  which  that 
righteousness  is  applied  ? 

On  the  settlement  of  these,  hangs  all  the  contro- 
versy. 

The  first  is  resolved  into  the  following :  Is  the 
righteousness  by  which  we  are  justified  an  external 
or  internal  righteousness?  If  the  former,  then  it  must 
be  what  is  ordinarily  called  the  righteousness  of 
Christ's  obedience  unto  death,  accounted  us,  through 
faith ;  If  the  latter,  then  it  must  be  the  righteous- 
ness of  a  personal  holiness,  wrought  in  us  by  the 
Spirit  of  God.  Oxford  Divines  assert  the  latter,  and 
so  does  the  Church  of  Rome.  We  assert  the  former, 
and  so  we  contend  (and  till  recently  we  did  not  sup- 
pose it  could  be  doubted,)  do  the  Articles  and  Homi- 
lies of  the  Anglican  Church.  So  that  the  first  ques- 
tion comes  to  this — viz : 

Do  the  Articles  and  Homilies  teach  Justification 
by  a  righteousness  external^  as  distinguished  from 
such  as  is  in  the  believer ;  in  other  words,  the  righte- 


323 


ousness  which  consists,  not  in  our  obedience  to  the 
Law,  through  the  aid  of  the  Spirit;  but  exclusively 
in  the  obedience  of  Christ,  as  our  surety,  and  his 
death  upon  the  cross? 

The  second  question,  as  to  the  mode  or  means  of 
applying  the  righteousness  of  Justification,  may  be  di- 
vided into  these  two,  viz  : 

1.  Is  faith  represented  as  an  instrument,  and  the 
only  instrument,,  on  the  part  of  man,  in  his  Justifica- 
tion before  God? 

2.  While,  as  a  living  faith,  it  must  work  by  love, 
and  be  productive  of  fruits  of  holiness,  does  it  jus- 
tify on  account  of  these,  its  fruits  and  attendants,  or 
through  them,  as  instrumental,  with  itself;  or  does 
it  renounce  them,  in  its  office  as  justifying,  and  re- 
nounce even  itself,  so  far  as  it  is  a  virtue,  or  work, 
within  us,  operating  simply  as  the  instrument  or 
hand  by  which  we  embrace  the  righteousness  of 
Christ? 

The  need  of  these  questions  will  be  easily  per- 
ceived if  the  reader  will  keep  in  mind  what  we  have 
shown  to  be  the  doctrine  of  Oxford  Divinity,  as  to 
the  nature  and  office  of  faith,  viz. — that,  before  Bap- 
tism, it  cannot  justify,  but  is  necessarily  a  dead  faith 
and  must  itself  be  brought  to  Baptism  to  be  made 
alive  thereby  and  justified;  and  that  it  can  be  instru- 
mental to  Justification,  only  in  that  it  brings  us  to 
Baptism,  having  no  more  concern  in  our  first  Justifi- 
cation, than  Restitution,  or  any  other  similar  moral 
act  done  before  Baptism ;  that  we  are  first  Justified  by 
Baptism,  without  a  living  faith;  and  then,  in  conse- 
quence of  such  Justification,  our  Faith  becomes  liv- 
ing and  justifying.    That  even  now,  after  Baptism, 


324 

it  is  justifying  only  as  a  symbol  and  Representative  of 
Baptism,  ''sustaining^'  what  has  already  been  ac- 
complished without  its  agency;  and  that  in  this 
mere  sustaining  office,  its  peculiar  character  as  an  in- 
strument is  only  nominal,  all  other  fruits  of  the  Spirit 
having  just  as  much  instrumentality,  and  faith  being 
mentioned  above  the  rest  merely  because  all  others 
are  included  under  it;  so  that  it  is  a  name  for  the 
whole  complex  of  Christianity,  as  carried  out  in  prac- 
tical piety.  ^ 

To  prove  that  it  is  the  doctrine  of  our  Articles  and 
Homilies,  not  only  that  we  are  justified  only  by  the 
external  righteousness  of  Christ,  accounted  unto  us; 

'  It  is  not  uncommon  for  those  who  would  shrink  from  participation  in  the 
general  system  of  Oxford  Divinity,  as  to  faith,  and  the  constituent  principle  of 
Justification,  to  maintain  nevertheless  the  same  doctrine  substantially,  as  to  the 
union  of  all  fruits  of  faith  with  itself,  in  its  relative  office  of  Justification.  We 
refer  to  the  representation  of  the  office  of  faith,  as  if  it  were  efficacious  unto  Jus- 
tification, not  as  a  single  act  of  the  soul,  by  -which  we  embrace  Christ,  operating 
merely  as  the  appointed  instrument  of  participation  in  his  righteousness,  and 
justifying  only  because  it  lays  hold  on  that  righteousness;  but  as  efficacious* 
because  it  is  "the  root  of  all  Christian  virtues,'^  "the  originating  principle  o 
love  and  every  good  work,"  and  thus,  in  root  and  branch,  the  "complex  of 
Christianity.^^ 

If  this  representation  be  correct,  there  is  no  propriety  in  saying  that  we  are 
justified  by  faith,  which  there  would  not  be  also  in  saying  that  we  are  justified 
by  "  love,  joy,  peace,  long-suffering,"  &c.,  by  all  those  virtues  of  godly  living 
which  are  "  the  fruits  of  faith,"  and  which  "folloxv  after  Justification." 

Now  that  the  word  faith  is  sometimes  used  in  the  Scriptures  for  the  sum  of 
Christianity,  we  freely  grant ;  that  Justifying  Faith  is  indeed  the  root  of  al^ 
Christian  virtues,  so  that  they  "  do  all  spring  out  necessarily  of  a  true  and  lively 
faith,"  we  consider  a  most  necessary  truth,  exceedingly  to  be  insisted  on  with 
every  soul  to  whom  the  Gospel  is  preached.  But  that  faith  derives  any  of  its 
justifying  virtue  from  these  fruits,  which  are  not  its  life,  but  its  evidences  of 
life,  we  hold  it  of  great  importance  to  deny,  and  on  the  contrary,  to  maintain 
that,  though  -ivorking  by  love,  as  it  must  if  living,  faith  is  effectual  for  justifica- 
tion, simply  as  an  act  of  embracing  Christ,  in  all  his  offices,  and  benefits,  and 
requirements,  whereby  the  sinner  lays  hold  of  his  promises  and  puts  on  the  gar- 
ment of  his  justifying  righteousness.    To  some  it  may  seem  that  the  diflference 


325 


but  that  faith  is  the  only  instrumental  means,  on 
man's  part,  of  his  partaking  in  that  righteousness, 
and  that,  in  its  agency,  as  the  only  instrument,  it  acts 
not  as  including,  but  as  renouncing  the  co-operating 
instrumentality  of  all  those  fruits  of  holiness  within 
us,  with  which  it  is  essentially  connected  in  all  prac- 
tical piety;  to  make  good  these  positions  will  suffi- 
ciently command  the  whole  field  of  the  present  con- 
troversy. 

In  referring  to  the  authorities,  now  to  be  cited,  the 
passages  bearing  on  all  these  points  are  so  interwo- 
ven one  with  another,  that  it  would  be  impossible 
to  make  separate  citations  for  each,  without  too 
much  repetition.  We  will  therefore  have  them  all 
in  view  together. 

between  these  divergent  views  is  too  slight  to  be  made  of  any  importance.  We 
apprehend,  however,  that  it  is  the  point  of  divergency  where  lies  the  unseen 
origin  of  those  very  errors  which  have  for  their  legitimate  issue,  tohen  carried 
out,  nothing  less  than  justification  by  inherent,  and  therefore  by  onr  oivn,  righte- 
ousness. 

Two  ways  may  separate  at  so  small  an  angle,  that  to  some  it  may  seem  of 
little  consequence  which  you  choose;  and  for  a  long  while,  you  may  go  on  in 
one,  without  being  very  far  separated  from  the  other — but  still  they  are  getting 
wider  apart,  and  if  the  lines  be  carried  out,  they  will  become  separated  by  the 
breadth  of  the  earth.  So  we  think  concerning  the  divergency  above  described. 
These  two  views  of  faith  seem  to  begin  their  separation  at  an  angle  scarcely 
measurable.  Many  an  eye  would  not  detect  it.  But  the  angle  is  there,  never- 
theless, and  the  minister,  though  he  may  never  trouble  his  people  with  its  mea- 
surement, should  know  the  importance  of  accuracy  there,  and  govern  his  views 
and  language  accordingly.  Two  minds,  taking  the  two  ways  from  this  point, 
may  long  continue  very  near  one  another  in  doctrine,  and  spirit,  and  fellowship; 
and  because  the  tendencies  of  the  way  that  leads  erroneously  may  never  be  car- 
ried out,  they  may  never  be  parted  any  further  asunder.  But  evil  tendencies  are 
not  always  in  such  good  hands.  Let  the  wrong  way  be  carried  out.  The  issue 
will  be,  as  appeared  at  the  Reformation,  and  as  now  appears  in  the  true  Pro- 
testant and  the  consistent  Romanist, — the  two  poles  of  doctrine,  as  far  asunder 
as  the  North  and  South, — Justification  by  the  righteousness  of  Christ  imputed 
— Justification  hij  our  own  rischtcmisncss  inherent. 


326 


The  first  question,  viz :  as  to  whether  Justification 
consists  in  a  righteousness  external,  or  in  one  that  is 
inherent,  we  consider  to  be  settled  by  a  singular  as- 
sertion on  the  part  of  Dr.  Pusey  in  his  Confession  of 
Faith. 

In  his  Article  on  Justification,  contained  in  his 
letter  to  the  Bishop  of  Oxford,  we  find  the  declara- 
tion that  the  eleventh  Article  of  the  Anglican  Church 
entitled,  Of  the  Justification  of  Man,''  says  noth- 
ing AS  TO  WHEREIN  OUR  JUSTIFICATION  CONSISTS.^ 

Now  let  the  Reader  look  back  to  what  we  have 
said,  from  Le  Bas,  &c.,  as  to  the  Articles  being 
framed  simply  "as  a  bulwark  against  the  perversions 
with  which  the  scholastic  theology  had  disfigured 
the  simplicity  of  the  Gospel;"  that  '^the  only  key 
to  their  true  sense  is  a  knowledge  of  the  papal  doc- 
trines, against  which  the  main  struggle  of  the  Re- 
formers was  carried  on;"  that  the  Articles  "were 
constructed,  for  the  most  part,  on  the  Lutheran  sys- 
tem, and  as  a  rampart  against  the  almost  unchristian 
theology  of  the  schools ;"  let  the  reader  also  consider 
that  all  this  is  granted,  by  Dr.  Pusey,  with  regard 
to  the  intention  of  this  particular  Article  of  Justifi- 
cation, in  these  very  words,  viz :  "  The  eleventh  Ar- 
ticle hears  the  appearance,  on  its  very  face,  of  heing  a 
protest  against  Romish  error  f'"^  let  it  be  remem- 
bered that  "the  almost  unchristian  theology  of  the 
Schools"  and  of  the  Romish  creed,  as  founded  on 
that  theology,  entirely  excludes  all  external  righte- 
ousness from  that  by  which  a  sinner  is  justified, 
making  Justification  to  consist  entirely  of  a  righte- 


'  Letter,  p.  42. 


2  lb.  p.  41. 


327 


oiisness  inherent;  that  this  very  doctrine  it  was, 
ao-ainst  which  the  Reformers  levelled  their  most  in- 
dignant  protests;  that  according  to  Hooker  the 
"  grand  question  which  did  then  hang  in  controver- 
sy with  the  Romish  Church,  was  about  this  very 
matter  of  Justifying  righteousness" — the  nature 
and  essence  of  the  medicine  wherehy  Christ  cureth  our 
disease  that  Mr.  Newman  states  the  fundamental 
question  of  Justification  in  the  same  way,  viz  :  7vhat 
does  the  righteousness  of  Justification  consist  in ;  that 
when  Dr.  Pusey  and  Mr.  Newman  are  engaged  in 
setting  forth,  distinguishing  and  defending  their  own 
doctrine  of  Justification,  they  feel  it  necessary  to 
spend  pages  after  pages,  on  this  very  question ;  and 
yet  when  the  Church  of  England,  in  the  midst  of 
the  conflicts  and  jealousies  and  confusion  and  false 
accusations,  of  the  sera  of  the  Reformation  ;  when  the 
clouds  of  Romanism  had  only  partially  passed  away 
from  her  parishes,  and  the  Council  of  Trent  was  sit- 
ting and  forging  its  decrees  and  anathemas  on  this 
very  subject,  and  all  eyes,  as  well  of  the  reformed 
states  of  the  Continent,  as  of  the  Romish  hierarchy^ 
were  upon  her,  and  precision  and  fulness  of  state- 
ment upon  the  chief  matters  in  controversy  with 
Rome,  as  well  for  the  vindication  of  her  own  posi- 
tion, as  for  the  guidance  and  protection  of  her  peo- 
ple, were  so  specially  demanded;  then,  her  Arch- 
bishop and  Bishops  and  great  divines  did  solemnly 
frame  and  set  forth  a  declaration  of  faith,  on  this 
great  point  the  Reformation,  with  express  reference 
to  the  Romish  error,  calUng  it  the  Article  of  Justifi- 
cation, and  yet,  as  Oxford  Divines  assure  us,  they 
say  not  a  word  as  to  what  Justification  consists  in ; 


328 


this  they  knew  to  be  the  great  question,  and  yet 
they  say  nothing  at  all  about  it.  Dr.  Pusey  and 
Mr.  Newman  could  not  possibly  make  such  an  omis- 
sion, in  their  Articles  and  declarations ;  but  the  An- 
glican Reformers  most  singularly  did.  The  very 
point  on  which  their  Article  was  most  needed,  for  a 
rampart  against  the  corruptions  of  the  Schoolmen, 
and  the  decrees  of  Trent,  is  just  that  on  which  it  is 
silent  as  the  grave. 

Now  this  of  course  is  wholly  incredible,  utterly 
absurd.  Not  only  does  the  face  of  the  Article  say 
so;  but  the  whole  condition  of  things  in  which,  and 
the  whole  object  for  which,  it  was  constructed.  What 
then  ?  How  shall  we  explain  this  assertion  of  Dr. 
Pusey?  Most  evidently,  since  it  could  not  be  pre- 
tended that  the  Article  says  any  thing  in  favour  of 
the  Oxford  doctrine  of  Justification;  the  only  refuge 
was  to  deny  that  it  said  any  thing  against  it; — hence 
the  necessity  of  maintaining  that  on  the  main  ques- 
tion it  is  utterly  dumb.  The  desperateness  of  the 
refuge;  the  absurdity  of  the  pretence  is  the  settle- 
ment of  the  question.  It  cannot  be  that  the  Article 
says  nothing  as  to  what  Justification  consists  in.  It 
must,  it  does,  say  something.  What  is  it?  Were  it 
on  the  side  of  the  Oxford  doctrine,  would  it  not  be 
asserted?  Nothing  of  the  sort  is  claimed;  and  hence 
the  plain  conclusion  that  its  testimony  is  against 
that  doctrine. 

If  all  that  Oxford  divines  can  pretend  to  is,  that 
the  Articles  of  the  Church  say  nothing,  one  way,  or 
the  other,  then  they  present  nothing  but  this  assertion 
for  us  to  answer.  If  we  can  show  that  they  do  say 
something,  it  must  be  against  them .   If  we  can  show 


3-29 


that  both  Articles  and  Homilies  speak  strongly  and 
earnestly  to  the  point  in  question,  it  must  be  all 
strongly  against  them  ;  it  cannot  be  for  them,  or  they 
would  never  have  taken  this  tame,  negative  ground. 

The  Articles  in  question  are  the  following  : 
"  XI.  Of  the  Justification  of  Man. 

"  We  are  accounted  righteous  before  God,  only  for  the  merit  of  our 
Lord  and  Saviour  Jesus  Christ,  by  faith,  and  not  for  our  own  works 
or  deservings.  Wherefore,  that  we  are  justified  by  faith  only,  is  a 
most  wholesome  doctrine,  and  very  full  of  comfort:  as  more  largely 
is  expressed  in  the  Homily  of  Justification. 

"  XII.  Of  Good  TT'orA-5. 

"  Albeit  that  good  works,  which  are  the  fruits  of  faith,  and  follow 
after  Justification,  cannot  put  away  our  sins,  and  endure  the  severi- 
ty of  God's  Judgment ;  yet  are  they  pleasing  and  acceptable  to  God 
in  Christ,  and  do  spring  out  necessarily  of  a  true  and  lively  faith  ; 
insomuch  that  by  them  a  lively  faith  may  be  as  evidently  known, 
as  a  tree  discerned  by  the  fruit. 

'*  XIII.  Of  Works  hefore  Justification. 
Works  done  before  the  grace  of  Christ,  and  the  inspiration  of  his 
Spirit,  are  not  pleasant  to  God,  forasmuch  as  they  spring  not  of  faith 
in  Jesus  Christ ;  neither  do  they  make  men  meet  to  receive  grace, 
or,  as  the  School  Authors  say,  deserve  grace  of  congruity  :  yea  ra- 
ther, for  that  they  are  not  done  as  God  hath  willed  and  commanded 
them  to  be  done,  we  doubt  not  but  they  have  the  nature  of  sin." 

Mark  the  precision  of  the  first  of  these  Articles. 
The  righteousness  which  is  by  the  faith  of  Christ, 
and  our  own  righteousness  are  here,  according  to  the 
example  of  St.  PauL^  set  in  direct  opposition:  the 
words  ''onhj  for  the  merits  of  Christ,''  being  evidently 
the  intended  opposite  of  ''for  our  own  worlxs''  The 
former  excludes  the  latter.  The  two  are  incapable 
of  standing  together  in  this  matter.  Even  faith 
viewed  as  it  is  a  work  of  personal  grace  is  excluded, 


42 


'  Phil.  iii.  9. 


330 


and  is  considered  only  as  an  instrument  of  connection 
with  Christ.^  But  sach  is  the  fulness  of  that  meri- 
torious cause,  unto  all  who  believe,  that  they  are  ac- 
counted righteous ;  in  other  words,  righteousness  is 
accounted  ox  imputed  to  them;  righteousness  as  per- 
fect, as  the  merits  of  our  Redeemer,  because  of  those 
merits,  it  consists ;  so  that,  to  believers,  God  no  more 
imputes  sin,  than  if  they  had  never  sinned. 

The  reader  will  here  enquire,  by  what  device  it 
can  be  made  out,  that  the  above  eleventh  Article  does 
not  state  in  what  our  Justification  consists.  Does  it 
not  distinctly  say,  that  we  are  accounted  righteous 
before  God  only,  for  the  merits  of  our  Lord  and  Sa- 
viour, &c. — and  is  not  this  what  Justification  con- 
sists in,  even  the  accounting  of  the  righteousness  of 
Christ  to  the  believer?  No,  says  Oxford  Divinity, 
God  first  makes  us  righteous,  and  then,  and  on  that 
moral  basis,  accounts  us  righteous.  The  Article 
speaks  of  the  latter,  not  of  the  former.  But  which 
is  the  more  important  of  the  two  to  be  brought  into 
a  confession  of  faith — the  making,  or  the  accounting, 
the  thing,  or  the  name  ;  the  reality,  or  its  acknowl- 
edgment? Of  course  the  ^«A'm^  is  the  great  mat- 
ter. The  accounting,  on  the  part  of  God,  follows  of 
course.  And  yet,  according  to  these  writers,  the 
Church,  in  her  Article  of  Justification,  has  said  not 


1  It  is  worthy  of  note  how  carefully,  the  merely  instrumental  office  of  faith  is 
exhibited  in  the  Article ;  as  appears  more  plainly  in  the  Latin  form,  which  is 
of  equal  authority  with  the  English.  "Tantum  puopteu  meritum  doraini  ac 
servatoris  nostri  Jesu  Christi,  per  fidem,  non  propter  opera  et  merita  nostra, 
justi  coram  Deo  reputamur,  Quare  sola  fide,  nos  justificari,  doctrina  est  salu- 
berrima,"  &lc. 

What  is  meant  by  sola  fide^  is  shown  by  the  use  of  per  with  Jidem,  and  prop- 
ter with  meritum,  and  its  antithesis,  opera  riostra. 


331 


a  word  as  to  how  that  is  to  take  place ;  but  has  spent 
the  force  of  her  solemn  Confession  upon  the  mere 
matter  of  course  that  when  God  has  made  a  sinner 
righteous,  however  it  may  take  place,  then  he  ac- 
counts, or  considers  and  deals  with  him,  as  righteous. 
This  is  incredible. 

Now  as  the  Article  of  Justification  is  known  to 
have  been  written  by  Archbishop  Cranmer,  his  other 
writings,  when  they  speak  on  the  same  subject  must 
be  considered  the  surest  comment  upon  its  meaning. 
We  have  then,  in  his  Catechism,  the  following  ac- 
count of  what  ensues  upon  the  exercise  of  a  lively 
faith  in  Christ. 

*'  Then  God  doth  no  more  impute  unto  us  our  former  sins;  but  he 
doth  impute  and  give  unto  us  the  justice  and  righteousness  of  his 
Son  Jesus  Christ.  And  so  we  be  counted  righteous,  for  as  much  as 
no  man  dare  accuse  us  for  that  sin  for  the  which  satisfaction  is  made 
by  our  Saviour  Jesus  Christ."^ 

From  this  passage  it  appears  that  Cranmer  used 
the  words  account  and  impute  for  the  same  thing; 
that  to  be  accounted  righteous,  and  to  have  righte- 
ousness imputed  to  us,  was  one  matter  in  his  view. 
Then,  if  it  be  asked  whether  he  does  not  use  the 
phrase  to  impute  or  account  righteousness ^  in  the  sense 
of  the  Oxford  men,  viz:  as  making  one  righteous; 
let  it  be  asked  if  he  used  the  analogous  phrase — im- 
puting sin  in  the  sense  of  making  one  sinful.  The 
absurdity  of  the  last,  is  the  key,  if  any  be  needed,  to 
the  whole  phraseology.  Imputing  the  righteousness 
of  Christ  must  mean  the  setting  to  the  sinner's  ac- 
count the  righteousness  of  Christ,  as  his  mvn,  for 
Justification.    Then  when  the  same  writer  uses  the 

'  Cranmer's  Catechism  ;  (Redemption.) 


332 


similar  language  of  the  Article,  we  must  necessarily 
understand  liim  in  precisely  the  same  sense.  So 
that  allowing  the  framer  of  the  Article  to  explain 
his  own  words,  we  have  the  utmost  clearness  of  evi- 
dence that  the  constituent  righteousness  of  Justifica- 
tion, is  according  to  the  Anglican  Church,  simply 
the  external  and  imputed  righteousness  of  Christ. 

The  office  of  faith,  as  the  above  instrument  of  jus- 
tification, is  also  clearly  contained  in  the  same  Arti- 
cle— its  office  of  justifying,  not  as  in  itself  a  righte- 
ousness, but  only  as  it  is  the  appointed  instrumental 
medium  of  obtaininor  the  righteousness  of  Christ: 
not  as  that  on  account  of  which,  but  through  which, 
we  are  justified.  An  inspection  of  the  Latin  word- 
ing of  the  Article,  which  is  placed  in  the  note,  will 
make  this  still  more  plain.  ^  We  there  learn,  au- 
thoritatively, that  when  our  Reformers  say  hy  faith, 
they  mean  through  faith.  And  all  doubt  of  the  idea 
w^hich  they  intended  to  convey  is  effectually  re- 
moved by  the  import  of  the  preposition  which  they  em- 
ploy to  describe  the  efficacy  and  operation  of  Christ's 
merits.  Their  lang^uao^e  is:  "We  are  deemed  riorhte- 
ous  before  God,  only  on  account  of  the  merits  of  our 
Lord  and  Saviour  Jesus  Christ  through  faith,  and 
not  on  account  of  our  own  works  and  merits.  Hence 


i"Tantum  propter  meritum  domini  ac  servatoris  nostri  Jesu  Christi, fi- 
dem,  non  propter  opera  et  merita  nostra,  justi  coram  Deo  reputamur.  Quare  sola 
fide,  nos  justificari,  doctrina  est  saluberrima."  &c. 

Had  the  framer  of  this,  confined  himself  to  the  expression  sola  fide  (by  faith 
only)  which  may  mean  either  by  faith,  as  a  righteousness,  or  through  faith  as 
only  an  instrument,  they  might  have  spoken  obscurely.  But  all  ambiguity  is 
prevented  by  the  expression  per  fidem,  {through  faith,)  in  evident  contradis- 
tinction from  propter  meritum  {on  account  of  the  merits,  &c.)  Through  faith 
and  on  account  of  faith  are  widely  difierent  ways. 


333 


from  the  very  force  of  the  two  different  prepositions 
employed,  it  is  evidently  the  judgment  of  our  Re- 
formers: that,  in  the  sight  of  God,  we  are  justified 
meritoriously,  on  account  of  the  sole  righteousness 
of  Christ ;  while  through  faith,  we  are  justified  no 
further  than  instrumentallij  or  mediately 

Let  us  now  turn  to  the  Homily  to  which  this  Ar- 
ticle refers  us  for  a  larger  explication  of  its  doctrine. 
That  singularly  clear  declaration  of  the  w^ay  of  sal- 
vation was  evidently  prepared  with  special  reference 
to  the  peculiar  errors  of  the  Church  of  Home,  as  to 
the  Justifying  righteousness  and  the  office  of  Faith. 
Let  us  cite  the  following  passage. 

<*And  of  this  jusiice  and  mercy  of  God  knit  together,  speaketh 
St.  Paul  in  the  third  chapter  to  the  Ronnans  (23 — 25) :  '«  All  have 
offended,  and  have  need  of  the  glory  of  God  ;  but  are  justified  free- 
ly by  his  grace,  by  redennption  which  is  in  Jesus  Christ ;  whonn 
God  had  set  forth  to  us  for  a  reconciler  and  peace-maker  through 
faith  in  his  blood,  to  shew  his  righteousness.^^  And  in  the  tenth 
chapter  (4)  ;  "  Christ  is  the  end  of  the  Law  unto  righteousness,  to 
every  man  that  believeth.^^  And  in  the  eighth  chapter  (3,  4) ;  "That 
which  was  impossible  by  the  Law,  inasmuch  as  it  was  weak  by  the 
flesh,  God  sending  his  own  Son  in  the  similitude  of  sinful  fiesh,  by 
sin  condemned  sin  in  the  flesh  ;  that  the  righteousness  of  the  Law 
might  be  fulfilled  in  us,  which  walk  not  after  the  flesh,  but  after  the 
Spirit." 

"  In  these  foresaid  places,  the  Apostle  touchelh  specially  three 
things,  which  must  go  together  in  our  justification.  Upon  God's 
part,  his  great  mercy  and  grace:  upon  Christ's  pari,  justice  ;  that 
is,  the  satisfaction  of  God^s  justice,  or  the  price  of  our  redemption, 
by  the  offering  of  his  body,  and  shedding  of  his  blood,  with  fulfling 
of  the  Law  perfectly  and  thoroughly  :  and  upon  our  part,  true  and 
lively  faith  in  the  merits  of  Jesus  Christ;  which  yet  is  not  our's,  but 
by  God's  working  in  us.  So  that,  in  our  justification,  there  is  not 
only  God's  mercy  and  grace,  but  also  his  justice  ;   which  the  Apos- 


'  Faber's  Prim.  Doc.  of  Justification. 


334 


tie  calleth  the  justice  of  God  :  and  it  consisteth  in  paying  our  ran- 
som, and  fulfilling  of  the  Law  :  and  so  the  grace  of  God  doth  not 
shut  out  the  justice  of  God,  in  our  justification  ;  but  only  shuttelh 
out  the  justice  of  man  :  that  is  to  say,  the  justice  of  our  works,  as  to 
be  merits  of  deserving  our  justification.  And  therefore  St.  Paul  de- 
clareth  here  ?iothing,  upon  the  behalf  of  man,  concerning  his  justifi- 
cation, but  only  a  true  and  lively  faith  :  which  nevertheless  is  the 
gift  of  God,  and  not  man's  only  work  without  God. 

"And  yet  that  faith  doth  not  shut  out  repentance,  hope,  love, 
dread,  and  the  fear  of  God,  to  be  joined  with  faith  in  every  nnan  that 
is  justified:  but  it  shutteth  them  out  from  the  office  of  justifying.  So 
that,  although  they  be  all  present  together  in  him  that  is  justified, 
yet  they  justify  not  altogether.  Neither  doth  faith  shut  out  the  jus- 
tice of  our  good  works,  necessarily  to  be  done  afterwards  of  duty  to- 
wards God  ;  for  we  are  most  bounden  to  serve  God,  in  doing  good 
deeds,  commanded  by  him  in  his  Holy  Scripture,  all  the  days  of  our 
life  :  but  it  excludeth  them,  so  that  we  may  not  do  them  to  this  in- 
tent — to  be  made  Just  by  doing  of  them.  For  all  the  good  works 
that  we  can  do  be  imperfect,  and  therefore  not  able  to  deserve  our 
justification ;  but  our  justification  doth  come  freely  by  the  mere 
mercy  of  God  ;  and  of  so  great  and  free  mercy,  that,  whereas  all 
the  world  was  not  able  of  themselves  to  pay  any  part  towards  their 
ransom,  it  pleased  our  heavenly  Father,  of  his  infinite  mercy,  with- 
out any  our  desert  or  deserving,  to  prepare  for  us  the  most  precious 
jewels  of  Christ's  body  and  blood;  whereby  our  ransom  might  be 
fully  paid,  the  Law  fulfilled,  and  his  justice  fully  satisfied. 

"  So  that  Christ  is  now  the  righteousness  of  all  them  that  truly 
do  believe  in  him.  He  for  them  paid  their  ransom  by  his  death. 
He  for  them  fulfilled  the  Law  in  his  life.  So  that  now,  in  him,  and 
by  him,  every  true  Christian  man  may  be  called  a  fulfiller  of  the 
Law ;  forasmuch  as  that  which  their  infirmity  lacked,  Chrisfs 
Justice  hath  supplied. '^''^ 

In  this  passage,  the  reader  will  notice  an  express 
commentary  upon  the  passages  quoted  from  St.  Paul ; 
especially  upon  the  expression,  ''his  righteousness,'" 
or    God's  Justice     Christ    the  end  of  the  Law  for, 


1  Homily  of  Salvation,  p.  2, 


335 


or  u7ito,  righteousness ;  and  the  right eous7iess  of  the 
Law  fulfilled  in  us.'''  These  being  the  texts,  the  ob- 
ject is  to  show  what  is  meant  by  God's  Justice,  or 
righteousness,  in  our  Justification,  and  how  Christ  is 
the  end  of  the  Law,  for  righteousness,  so  that  the 
Law  is    fulfilled  in  us." 

Now  these  are  precisely  the  matters  in  discussion. 
Mr.  Newman  expounds  the  passage,  to  sheiv  His 
righteousness,'''  by  these  words,  "  a  righteousness  of 
His  own  making''^  as  distinguished  from  a  righte- 
ousness of  our  making ;  in  other  words,  a  righteous- 
ness wrought  in  us  and  by- us,  through  the  Holy 
Ghost,  in  distinction  from  that  of  our  own  unaided, 
unsanctified  efforts  of  obedience.  The  latter,  he 
thinks,  is  what  St.  Paul  calls,  in  Phil,  iii.,  the 
righteousness  which  is  of  the  law;"  the  former,  'Hhe 
righteousness  of  God  by  faith."  Now  let  us  see 
what  the  Homily  calls  this  righteousness  of  God.  It 
says  that  what  St.  Paul  calls  "  the  Justice,"  or 
righteousness  "  of  God  consist eth  in  'paying  our  ran- 
som and  in  fulfilling  of  the  LawP  This  same  jus- 
tice or  righteousness  is  before  called  ''the  price  of 
our  redemption  by  the  offering  of  the  body,  and  shed- 
ding of  the  blood  of  Christ,  with  fulfilling  of  the 
Law  perfectly  and  thoroughly,"— and  this  is  said  to 
be  the  Justice  or  righteousness  of  Christ,  or  that 
which  is  Christ's  part  in  our  Justification.  Now  if 
there  be  any  possible  sense  in  which  such  righteous- 
ness can  be  in  us,  instead  of  being  external  to  us  and 
in  Christ  only,  we  cannot  perceive  it. 

This  righteousness  is  said  to  consist  in  "the  most 
precious  jewels  of  Christ's  body  and  blood."  The 


'  Lecture  on  Justification,  p.  54. 


336 


only  thing  on  man's  part"  which  the  Homily  con- 
siders as  having  any  part  in  his  Justification,  through 
that  external  righteousness  of  Christ,  is  "a  true  and 
lively  faith'''  But  this,  it  takes  great  pains  to  shew, 
has  not  its  influence,  as  constituting  any  part  of  the 
justifying  righteousness;  for  all  good  works  it  says, 
(and  faith  is,  in  one  sense,  a  worl:,)  are  excluded 
from  that  office  and  are  not  to  be  done  for  the  pur- 
pose of  our  being  made  righteous,  or  being  justified 
by  doing  them ;  so  that  the  office  of  faith  is  simply 
that  of  an  instrument,  whereby  we  embrace  the  righte- 
ousness of  Christ.  Thus  the  "justice"  or  righteous- 
ness ''of  man,"  that  is  to  say  "the  righteousness  of 
our  works,"  precisely  that  which  we  are  told  by  Ox- 
ford Divines  has  a  satisfying  and  justifying  quali- 
ty^''' and  does  fulfil  the  Law  and  constitute  the 
righteousness  of  our  Justification,  this,  the  Homily 
says,  is  sliut  out ;  nothing  in  us  being  connected 
with  our  Justification,  but  simply  our  faith.  So,  by 
the  Ransom  paid  for  us  by  Christ  in  his  death  and 
the  fulfilment  of  the  Law  in  his  life.  He  is  "  the  end 
of  the  Law  for  righteousness,"  or  he  "is  now  the 
righteousness  of  them  that  do  believe  in  him."  Then 
if  it  be  asked  how  "the  Law  is  fulfilled  in  us,"  the 
Homily  answers  :  "In  him  and  by  him,  every  true 
Christian  man,"  i.  e.  every  one  who  has  "a  true  and 
lively  faith  in  Christ,"  ''may  he  called  a  fulfiller  of 
the  Law,  for  as  much  as  that  which  their  infirmity 
hath  lacked,  Christ's  righteousness  hath  supplied.'" 

Here  then  is  the  external  and  accounted  righteous- 
ness of  Christ,  in  his  Mediatorial  office,  asserted  as 
the  Justification  of  the  sinner,  believing  in  him,  to 
the  entire  exclusion  of  all  other  righteousness  for 
that  end. 


337 


To  show  how  exceedingly  careful  is  this  Homily 
lest  it  should  be  supposed  that  any  thing  in  us,  even 
our  faith,  can  make  up  any  part  of  the  righteousness 
of  our  Justification,  let  the  following  extract  be  read. 

"First,  you  shall  understand  that,  in  our  justification  by  Christ, 
it  is  not  all  one  thing,  The  office  of  God  unto  man,  and  the  office  of 
man  unto  God.  Justification  is  not  the  office  of  man,  but  of  God  ; 
for  man  cannot  make  himself  righteous  by  his  own  works,  neither 
in  part  nor  in  the  whole:  for  that  were  the  greatest  arrogancy  and 
presumption  of  man,  that  Antichrist  could  set  up  against  God,  to  af- 
firm that  a  man  might  by  his  own  works  take  away  and  purge  his 
own  sins,  and  so  justify  himself.  But  justification  is  the  office  of 
God  only;  and  is  not  a  thing  which  we  render  unto  him,  but  which 
we  receive  of  him  ;  not  which  we  give  to  him  :  but  which  we  take 
of  him  by  his  free  mercy,  and  by  the  only  merits  of  his  most  dearly 
beloved  Son,  our  only  Redeemer,  Saviour,  and  Justifier,  Jesus  Christ. 

So  that  the  true  understanding  of  this  doctrine — We  be  justified 
freely  by  faith,  without  works,  or  that  we  be  justified  by  faith  in 
Christ  only — is  not,  that  this  our  own  act,  to  believe  in  Christ,  or 
this  our  faiih  in  Christ,  which  is  within  us,  doth  justify  us,  and  de- 
serve our  justification  unto  us — for  that  were  to  count  ourselves  to 
be  justified  by  some  act  or  virtue  that  is  within  ourselves — but  the 
true  understanding  and  meaning  thereof  is,  that  although  we  hear 
God's  word,  and  believe  it;  although  we  have  faith,  hope,  charity, 
repentance,  dread,  and  fear  of  God  within  us,  and  do  never  so  many 
good  works  thereunto:  yet  we  must  renounce  the  merit  of  all  our 
said  virtues,  of  faith,  hope,  charity,  and  all  our  other  virtues  and 
good  deeds,  which  we  either  have  done,  shall  do,  or  can  do,  as  things 
that  be  far  too  weak  and  insufficient,  and  imperfect,  to  deserve  re- 
mission of  our  sins,  and  our  justification  :  and  therefore  we  must 
trust  only  in  God's  mercy,  and  that  sacrifice  which  our  High  Priest 
and  Saviour  Christ  Jesus,  the  Son  of  God,  once  offered  for  us  upon 
the  cross,  to  obtain  thereby  God's  grace  and  remission,  as  well  of 
our  original  sin  in  baptism,  as  of  all  actual  sin  committed  by  us 
after  our  baptism,  if  we  truly  repent  and  turn  unfeignedly  to  him 
again. 

So  that,  as  St.  John  Baptist,  although  he  were  never  so  virtuous 

and  godlv  a  man,  yet  in  this  matter  of  forgiving  of  sin,  he  did  put 
43 


338 


the  people  from  him,  and  appointed  them  unto  Christ,  saying  thus 
unto  them,  "  Behold,  yonder  is  the  Lamb  of  God,  which  taketh 
away  the  sins  of  the  world  "  (John  i.  29) :  even  so,  as  great  and  as 
godly  a  virtue  as  the  lively  faith  is,  yet  it  putteth  us  from  itself,  and 
remitteth  or  appointeth  us  unto  Christ,  for  to  have  only  by  him  re- 
mission of  our  sins,  or  justification.  So  that  our  faith  in  Christ,  as 
it  were,  saith  unto  us  thus :  It  is  not  I  that  take  away  your  sins,  but 
it  is  Christ  only;  and  to  him  only  I  send  you  for  that  purpose,  for- 
saking therein  all  your  good  virtues,  words,  thoughts  and  works, 
and  only  putting  your  trust  in  Christ."^ 

Let  it  be  remarked  how  carefully  and  strikingly 
the  simply  instrumental  character  of  justifying  faith 
is  here  exhibited ;  how,  as  a  grace,  or  work,  its  effi- 
cacy is  excluded;  so  that  we  are  made  to  consider 
faith,  in  the  sinner's  coming  to  Christ,  to  be  justify- 
ing, only  as  the  faith  of  Bartimeus  was  instrumental 
in  opening  his  eyes — that  is,  only  as  it  leads  us  to 
Christ.  Should  we  regard  faith  as,  in  any  other 
way,  concerned  in  this  great  office,  we  should  then 
be  counting  ourselves,  says  the  Homily,  to  be  justi- 
fied hy  some  act  or  virtue  that  is  rvithin  our  selves. 
Any  departure  from  the  doctrine  of  the  very  simplest 
and  merest  instrumental  office  of  faith,  not  of  a  faith 
that  does  not  work  by  love,  but  of  a  faith  that  does 
not  bring  its  love  or  other  attendant  graces  into  the 
work  of  Justification,  is  considered,  by  the  Church, 
as  inconsistent  with  the  putting  of  our  trust  singly  in 
Christ,  and  as  partaking  of  a  reliance  upon  something 
inherent  in  ourselves. 

That  Faith  is  not  only  the  instrument,  but  the  only 
instrument,  is  prominently  asserted  in  the  following 
extracts. 

'* Truth  it  is,  that  our  own  works  do  not  justify  us,  to  speak  pro- 


'  Homily  of  Salvation,  p.  2. 


339 


perly  of  our  justification  :  that  is  to  say,  our  works  do  not  nierii  or 
deserve  remission  of  our  sins,  and  make  us,  of  unjust,  just  before 
God ;  but  God  of  his  mere  mercy,  through  the  only  merits  and  de- 
servings  of  his  Son  Jesus  Christ,  doth  justify  us.  Nevertheless,  be- 
cause faith  doth  directly  send  us  to  Christ  for  remission  of  our  sins ; 
and  that,  by  faith  given  us  of  God,  we  embrace  the  promise  of  God's 
mercy,  and  of  the  remission  of  our  sins — which  thing  none  other  of 
our  virtues  or  works  properly  doth — therefore  the  Scripture  useth  to 
say,  that  faith  without  works  doth  justify.  And  forasmuch  as  it  is 
all  one  sentence  in  effect  to  say,  faith  without  works,  and  only  faith, 
doth  justify  us  ;  therefore  the  old  ancient  fathers  of  the  church,  from 
time  to  time,  have  uttered  our  justification  with  this  speech,  Only 
faith  justifielh  us;  meaning  no  other  than  St.  Paul  meant,  when  he 
said,  '  Faith  without  works  justifieth  us.' 

"  And  because  all  this  is  brought  to  pass  through  the  only  merits 
and  deservings  of  our  Saviour  Christ,  and  not  through  our  merits,  or 
through  the  merit  of  any  virtue  that  we  have  within  us,  or  of  any 
work  that  cometh  from  us ;  therefore,  in  that  respect  of  merit  and 
deserving,  we  forsake,  as  it  were,  altogether  again,  faith,  works,  and 
all  other  virlues.  For  our  own  imperfection  is  so  great,  through  the 
corruption  of  original  sin,  that  all  is  imperfect  that  is  within  us — faith, 
charity,  hope,  dread,  thoughts,  words,  and  works — and  therefore  not 
apt  to  merit  and  deserve  any  part  of  our  justification  for  us.  And 
this  form  of  speaking  use  we,  in  the  humbling  of  ourselves  to  God, 
and  to  give  all  the  glory  to  our  Saviour  Christ,  who  is  best  worthy 
to  have  it. 

*'  The  right  and  true  Christian  faith  is,  not  only  to  believe  that 
Holy  Scripture,  and  all  the  aforesaid  articles  of  our  faith,  are  true; 
but  also  to  have  a  sure  trust  and  confidence  in  God's  merciful  pro- 
mises, to  be  saved  from  everlasting  damnation  by  Christ ;  whereof 
doth  follow  a  loving  heart  to  obey  his  commandments.  And  this 
true  Christian  faith  neither  any  devil  hath ;  nor  yet  any  man,  which 
in  the  outward  profession  of  his  mouth,  and  in  his  outward  receiving 
of  the  sacraments,  in  coming  to  the  church,  and  in  all  other  outward 
appearances,  seemeth  to  be  a  Christian  man,  and  yet  in  his  living 
and  deeds  sheweth  the  contrary."^ 


Homily  of  Salvation,  p.  3. 


340 


In  the  first  of  these  paragraphs,  there  is  an  express 
distinction  made,  between  the  agency  of  faith,  and 
that  of  all  other  graces  and  works.  The  meaning  of 
the  expressions,  ''only  faith  justijieth,^^  ''faith  without 
worhs  justifieth^^  &c,,  is  clearly  declared  to  be,  not 
that  a  faith  which  is  not  fruitful  in  good  works,  jus- 
tifieth,  but  that  a  living  faith  does,  what  '''none  other 
of  our  virtues^  or  rvorks  properly  doth''  "It  doth 
directly  send  us  to  Christ  for  remission  of  our  sins," 
and  ''by  it,  we  embrace  the  promise  of  God's  mercy, 
and  of  the  remission  of  our  sins."  This  none  other 
virtues  or  works  can  do. 

The  nature  and  instrumental  office  of  Justifying 
faith  is  expressed,  if  possible,  more  prominently  in  the 
following  extracts  from  the  Komily  of  the  Passion. 

"  Now  it  remainelh  that  I  shew  unto  you,  how  to  apply  Christ's 
death  and  passion  to  our  comfort,  as  a  medicine  to  our  wounds ;  so 
that  it  may  work  the  same  effect  in  us  wherefore  it  was  given, 
namely,  the  health  and  salvation  of  our  souls.  For  as  it  profiteth  a 
man  nothing  to  have  salve,  unless  it  be  well  applied  to  the  part  af- 
fected ;  so  the  death  of  Christ  shall  stand  us  in  no  force,  unless  we 
apply  it  to  ourselves  in  such  sort  as  God  hath  appointed. 

"Almighty  God  commonly  worketh  by  means;  and  in  this  thing 
he  hath  also  ordained  a  certain  mean,  whereby  we  may  take  fruit 
and  profit  to  our  souls'  health.  What  mean  is  that?  Forsooth  it  is 
faith.  Not  an  unconstant  or  wavering  faith :  but  a  sure,  stedfast, 
grounded,  and  unfeigned  faith.  "  God  sent  his  Son  into  the  world," 
saith  St.  John.  To  what  end?  "That  whosoever  believeth  in  him 
should  not  perish,  but  have  life  everlasting."  (John  iii.  16.)  Mark 
these  words,  "  that  whosoever  believeth  in  him."  Here  is  the  mean, 
whereby  we  must  apply  the  fruits  of  Christ's  death  unto  our  deadly 
wound.  Here  is  the  mean,  whereby  we  must  obtain  eternal  life; 
namely,  faith.  '  For,'  as  St.  Paul  teacheth  in  his  Epistle  to  the  Ro- 
mans, *  with  the  heart  man  believeth  unto  righteousness,  and  with  the 
mouth  confession  is  made  unto  salvation."  (x.  10.)  Paul,  being  de- 
manded of  the  keeper  of  the  prison, '  what  he  should  do  to  be  saved, 


341 


made  this  answer :  '  Believe  in  the  Lord  Jesus,  so  shall  thou  and 
thine  house  both  be  saved.'  (Acts  xvi.  30,  31.)  After  the  Evange- 
list had  described,  and  set  forth  unto  us  at  large,  the  life  and  death 
of  the  Lord  Jesus,  in  the  end  he  concludeth  with  these  words  : 
'  These  things  are  written,  that  we  may  believe  Jesus  Christ  to  be 
the  Son  of  God,  and  through  faiih  obtain  eternal  life.'  .(John  xx.  31.) 
To  conclude  with  the  words  of  St.  Paul,  which  are  these :  '  Christ 
is  the  end  of  the  law  unto  salvation,  for  every  one  that  doth  believe.' 
(Rora.  X.  4.) 

"By  this  then  you  may  well  perceive,  that  the  only  mean  and  in- 
strument of  salvation,  required  of  our  parts,  is  faith.' 

"Therefore  I  say  unto  you,  that  we  must  apprehend  the  merits 
of  Christ's  death  and  passion  by  faith ;  and  that  with  a  strong  and 
stedfast  faith,  nothing  doubting  but  that  Christ  by  his  one  oblation 
and  once  offering  of  himself  upon  the  cross,  hath  taken  away  our 
sins,  and  hath  restored  us  again  into  God's  favour,  so  fully  and  per- 
fectly, that  no  other  sacrifice  for  sin  shall  hereafter  be  requisite  or 
needful  in  all  the  world. 

"  Thus  have  you  heard,  in  few  words,  the  mean  whereby  we  must 
apply  the  fruits  and  merits  of  Christ's  death  unto  us,  so  that  it  may 
work  the  salvation  of  our  souls;  namely,  a  sure,  stedfast,  perfect, 
and  grounded  faith.  For,  as  all  they  which  beheld  stedfastly  the 
brazen  serpent  were  healed  and  delivered,  at  the  very  sight  thereof, 
from  their  corporal  diseases  and  bodily  stings  (Num.  xxi.  9;  John 
iii.  14;)  even  so  all  they,  which  behold  Christ  crucified  with  a  true 
and  lively  faith,  shall  undoubtedly  be  delivered  from  the  grievous 
wounds  of  the  soul,  be  they  never  so  deadly  or  many  in  number. 

"  Therefore,  dearly  beloved,  if  we  chance  at  any  time,  through 
frailty  of  the  flesh,  to  fall  into  sin — as  it  cannot  be  chosen  but  we 
must  needs  fall  often — and  if  we  feel  the  heavy  burden  thereof  to 
press  our  souls,  tormenting  us  with  the  fear  of  death,  hell,  and  dam- 
nation ;  let  us  then  use  that  mean  which  God  hath  appointed  in  his 
word  ;  to  wit,  the  mean  of  faith,  which  is  the  only  instrument  of  sal- 
vation now  left  unto  us.  Let  us  stedfastly  behold  Christ  crucified 
with  the  eyes  of  our  heart.  Let  us  only  trust  to  be  saved  by  his 
death  and  passion,  and  to  have  our  sins  clean  washed  away  through 
his  most  precious  blood  ;  that,  in  the  end  of  the  world,  when  he  shall 
come  again  to  judge  both  the  quick  and  the  dead,  he  may  receive  us 
into  his  heavenly  kingdom,  and  place  us  in  the  number  of  his  elect 


342 


and  chosen  people;  there  to  be  partakers  of  that  innmortal  and  ever- 
lasting life,  which  he  haih  purchased  unto  us,  by  virtue  of  his  bloody 
wounds:  to  him  therefore,  with  the  Father  and  the  Holy  Ghost,  be 
all  honour  and  glory,  world  without  end.  Amen,^^^ 

Here  we  have  faith  distinctly  called  the  "  mean 
and  instrument  of  our  salvation;"  the  o/z/y  instru- 
ment of  salvation  now  left  unto  us that  ^'  by  which 
we  apply  Christ's  death  and  passion  to  our  comfort, 
and  as  a  medicine  to  our  wounds;"  by  which  we 
"stedfastly  behold  Christ  crucified  with  the  eyes  of 
our  heart." 

Now  let  us  make  a  brief  summary  of  the  points 
which  have  been  distinctly  made  from  the  Articles 
and  Homilies.  They  are  chiefly  the  following,  viz. 
That  the  righteousness  whereby  we  are  justified,  is 
exclusively  the  righteousness  of  Christ ;  that  it  con- 
sists in  his  obedience  to  the  law  for  us,  and  his  pay- 
ing, by  his  death  on  the  cross,  the  penalty  of  our  sin ; 
that  this  righteousness  is  what  St.  Paul  calls  the 
righteousness  of  God ;  that  when  accounted  or  im- 
puted to  the  sinner,  he  is  accounted  righteous  before 
God  for  Christ's  sake,  perfectly  righteous  so  that  he 
is  regarded  and  treated  as,  in  Christ,  a  fulfiller  of  the 
Law;  that  the  only  mean  or  instrument  by  which 
we  can  apply  or  obtain  the  imputation  of  this  righte- 
ousness is  that  of  a  living  faith ;  that  such  faith  act- 
ing thus,  as  the  instrument  of  applying  the  righteous- 
ness of  Christ,  is  not  justifying  because  of  any  justi- 
fying efficacy  in  the  love  and  other  holy  fruits  with 
which  it  is  attended,  but  solely  as  it  leads  the  soul  to 
Christ. 

Now  let  the  reader  compare  these  necessary  con- 


'  Second  Homily  of  the  Passion. 


343 


elusions  from  the  standards  of  our  Church,  with  the 
main  features  which  have  been  exhibited  of  the  Ox- 
ford doctrine  on  these  heads.  What  the  Articles  and 
Homilies  so  distinctly  teach,  that  system  directly  de- 
nies, most  earnestly  condemns,  and  most  indignantly  ' 
casts  away.  A  more  singular  pretence  was  never 
penned,  or  conceived,  than  that  such  representations 
of  Christian  truth,  as  those  of  Mr.  Newman  and  Dr. 
Pusey,  are  capable  of  being  squeezed,  by  any  force 
of  systematizing  pressure,  or  any  skill  of  critical 
management,  into  any  thing  but  a  perfect  contradic- 
tion of  the  plainest  and  most  repeated  declarations  of 
their  own  Church. 

But  have  these  writers  no  way  of  defending  them- 
selves against  such  charges  of  contradiction  ?  Surely 
they  have.  How  far  they  are  sufficient  we  will  attempt 
to  show.  The  first  way  is  the  following.  They  first 
assert,  as  we  have  seen,  that  the  Article  of  Justifica- 
tion says  nothing  of  what  Justification  consists  in. 
The  absurdity  of  such  an  idea,  considering  the  ac- 
knowledged object,  and  all  the  circumstances  in,  and 
for,  which  the  Article  was  made,  we  have  already 
shown,  and  turned  against  its  advocates.  Whether 
the  Homily  declares  what  Justification  consists  in, 
w^e  are  not  told.  But  the  reader  is  intended  evi- 
dently by  Dr.  Pusey,  in  his  Letter  to  the  Bishop  of 
Oxford,  to  take  the  impression  that  neither  in  the 
Article,  nor  in  the  Homily  constructed  expressly  for 
its  larger  explication,  has  the  Church  pronounced 
upon  "the  nature  and  essence  of  the  medicine  with 
which  Christ  cureth  our  disease  ''—the  nature  of  the 
justifying  righteousness.  Then  what  does  the  Church 
pronounce? 


344 


*'  The  Article  (says  Dr.  Pusey)  opposes  the  merit  of  Christ  to  any 
thing  which  we  have  of  our  own,  to  our  own  works  and  deservings, 
as  the  meritorious  cause  of  our  salvation  ;  and  thus  far,  we  believe, 
little  is  inaputed  to  us.  It  is  so  plain  a  truth,  and  has  been  so  often 
inculcated  by  us,  that  every  sin  of  man  which  is  remitted,  is  remitted 
only  for  the  sake  of  his  meritorious  Cross  and  Passion  ;  every  good 
and  acceptable  work  is  such  through  his  power  working  in  us,  that 
little,  1  believe,  has  thus  far  been  objected."^ 

All  this  is  very  plausible.  But  precisely  such  lan- 
guage is  used  by  the  Church  of  Rome,  as  was 
showed  in  the  fifth  chapter  of  this  work.  She  makes 
the  Lord  Jesus  Christ  the  only  meritorious  cause. 
She  ascribes  every  good  and  acceptable  w^ork  to  the 
grace  of  God  through  the  merits  of  Christ.  She 
holds  that  the  first  Justification,  that  of  a  sinner's 
first  coming  to  God,  and  necessarily  without  any 
works,  must  be  of  the  mere  mercy  of  God  remitting 
sins  for  Christ's  sake.  But  the  Church  of  Rome  and 
the  Oxford  men  agree  that  even  in  that  case  the  re- 
mission consists,  not  in  the  accounting  to  that  sin- 
ner of  the  righteousness  of  Christ,  as  the  Homilies 
describe  it;  but  in  the  expulsion  of  sin  from  his  soul, 
and  the  infusion  of  righteousness  for  Christ's  sake; 
so  that  when  they  speak  of  such  a  person's  receiving 
remission  of  sins  for  Christ's  sake,  their  meaning, 
and  that  of  the  Articles  and  Homilies,  are  entirely 
different.  When,  however,  they  come  to  what  con- 
stitutes the  subsequent  acceptableness  of  that  sinner^ 
in  all  his  future  course ;  while,  with  the  Anglican 
Church,  as  above,  that  acceptableness  is  simply  the 
being  accounted  righteous,  through  the  imputation 
of  the  righteousness  of  Christ,  from  the  first  to  the 


'Letter,  p.  41. 


345 


last  of  the  Christian  life,  no  virtue  or  work  or  grace 
of  ours  constituting  any  part  of  the  ground  of  our  ac- 
ceptance, at  the  end,  any  more  than  at  the  beginning, 
of  our  race ;  with  Oxfordists  and  Romanists,  it  is 
just  the  reverse.  Acceptance,  with  them,  is  wholly 
founded  upon  our  own  righteousness.  The  Law  is 
considered  as  fulfilled  in  our  obedience.  We  are 
justified  more  and  more  as  we  grow  in  grace.  The 
merits  of  Christ  are  only  connected,  as  it  is  through 
them  that  any  good  work  is  wrought  in  us.  But  the 
whole  process  may  go  on  without  our  ever  looking 
to  the  cross  of  Christ;  or  even  knowing  enough  of 
what  he  did  for  us,  to  be  capable  of  ''an  explicit  be- 
lief in  his  atonement."  Now  with  such  a  doctrine, 
the  Papists  and  the  Oxfordists  may  profess  to  as- 
cribe all  merit  to  Christ.  The  Papist  may  be  some- 
times more  candid,  than  the  Oxfordist,  in  sometimes 
ascribing  in  terms  a  modified  merit  to  man's  inhe- 
rent righteousness,  while,  at  other  times,  he  professes 
to  give  all  merit  to  the  Saviour.  But  the  difference 
is  only  in  words.  Do  any  men  of  Oxford  divinity 
employ  stronger  language  than  the  following :  ''He 
that  could  reckon  how  many  the  virtues  and  merits 
of  our  Saviour  have  been,  might  likewise  understand 
how  many  the  benefits  have  been  that  are  come  to 
us  by  him,  for  so  much  as  men  are  made  partakers 
of  them  all  by  means  of  his  passion;  by  him  is  given 
unto  us  remission  of  sins,  grace,  glory,  liberty,  praise, 
salvation,  redemption,  justification — merits  and  all 
other  things  which  were  behoveful  for  our  salva- 
tion.'"   Again :  "  All  grace  is  given  by  Jesus  Christ. 


'  Lewis  of  Granada,  in  Hool<er  on  Justif.  §  .33. 

44 


346 


True,  but  not  except  Christ  Jesus  be  applied.  He 
is  the  propitiation  for  our  sins ;  by  his  stripes  we  are 
healed — all  this  is  true,  but  apply  it.  We  put  all 
satisfaction  in  the  blood  of  Jesus  Christ:  but  we  hold 
that  the  means  which  Christ  hath  appointed  for  us, 
in  the  case,  to  apply  it,  are  our  penal  norksy'^ 

Beyond  this  language  our  Oxford  men  cannot  go. 
Thus  far  they  may  g-^.  But  notwithstanding  all  this, 
the  Council  of  Trent  has  decreed  that  the  Justified 
can  and  do  nurit  eternal  life.  Bellarmine  has  la- 
boured to  prove  that  good  works  are  necessary  to 
eternal  life,  not  only  necessitate  prcEsentice,  as  the  way 
to  God's  kingdom  ;  which  all  confess ;  but  also  ne- 
cessitate efficentice,  as  causes  of  eternal  life.  And 
"the  most  learned  of  the  Papists  hold  that  there  is  a 
due  proportion  between  the  works  of  the  faithful  pro- 
ceeding from  charity,  and  the  heavenly  reward,  and 
that  they  condignly  merit  eternal  life,  not  only  in  re- 
spect of  God's  promise,  but  also  for  the  worthiness 
of  the  works,  which  are  so  dignified ,  theij  say,  by  the 
merit  of  Christ  that  they  become  truly  meritorious, 
and  do  in  Justice,  according  to  their  worth,  deserve 
the  heavenly  reward."^ 

Now  such  language,  as  this,  the  Oxford  writers 
have  not  used.  But  they  have  used  the  equivalent. 
They  constantly  contend  that  our  o^vn  righteousness 
has  a  justifying  quality,  does  fulfil  the  law,  is  the 
basis  of  our  acceptance  with  God.  They  call  it  the 
only  wedding  garment  in  which  the  soul  can  be 
invested.  But  that  which  constitutes  our  Justifica- 
tion is  our  merit,  call  it  what  else  they  please.  "If  it 


'  Paulgarola,  in  Hooker  on  Justif.  §  33.     ^  Bishop  Downame  on  Justf.  p.  549. 


347 


be  a  righteousness  in  us;  (says  Hooker,)  it  is  as 
much  our  rio-hteousness  as  our  souls  are  ours."  It  is 
then  a  righteousness  of  works,  as  distuiguished  from 
the  accounted  righteousness  of  Christ.  Differ  as 
Romanists  and  Oxford-men  may,  as  to  the  use  of  the 
word  merit,  in  this  apphcation;  when  the  former 
say  that  ''our  ivorks  are  so  dignified  hij  the  merits  of 
Christ  that  they  become  truly  meritorious,'^  they  mean 
no  more  than  Mr.  Newman  means,  w^hen  he  says 
^'that,  through  the  merits  of  Christ,  our  indwelling 
righteousness  is  our  justification ;  that  the  righteous- 
ness in  which  we  are  to  stand  at  the  last  day,  is  not 
Chris fs  imputed  obedience,  but  our  good  works.^'^ 

In  this  harmonizing,  we  do  not  diminish  the  ex- 
cessive error  of  the  Romanist;  but  we  unveil  the 
real  error  of  the  Oxford  divines.  Both  are  upon  a 
system  of  human  merit,  under  different  language, 
because  both  looking  to  ivithin  themselves,  instead  of 
to  Christ,  for  righteousness  before  God;  while  both 
speak  of  ascribing  all  to  the  merit  of  the  Saviour's 
passion,  applied  through  the  Sacraments,  and  by  in- 
fusion of  righteousness. 

Thus  it  is  obvious  that  the  entireness  of  the  con- 
tradiction between  the  doctrine  of  this  divinity  and 
that  of  the  Articles  and  Homilies,  concerning  the 
basis  of  our  acceptance,  is  not  in  any  wise  dimin- 
ished by  the  profession  of  ascribing  all  meritorious 
causation  to  Christ. 

But  another  effort  of  escape  from  the  evident  con- 
demnation at  the  bar  of  the  Articles  and  Hornihes,  is 
in  reference  to  the  sole  instrumentality  of  faith.  When 


Lectures  on  Justification,  p.  60. 


348 


accused  of  taking  away  from  faith  the  office  assigned 
to  it  in  those  standards  as  ''the  only  instrument  and 
mean  of  applying  the  death  of  Christ,"  as  the  "  only 
thing  upon  the  behalf  of  man,  concerning  his  justifi- 
cation," we  hear  that  the  instrumentality  of  Faith 
as  the  only  internal  instrument  is  not  taken  away. 
"When  Faith  (they  say)  is  called  the  sole  instru- 
ment, this  means  the  sole  internal  instrument ;  not 
the  sole  instrument  of  any  kind." 

*'  There  is  nothing  inconsistent  then,  in  Faith  being  the  sole  in- 
strument of  Justification,  and  yet  Baptism  also  the  sole  instrument, 
and  that  at  the  same  time,  because  in  distinct  senses  ;  an  inward  in- 
strument in  no  way  interfering  with  an  outward  instrument."^ 

Now  let  us  see  how  the  language  of  the  Homilies 
concerning  this  sole  internal  instrument  will  sound, 
according  to  the  Oxford  doctrine  of  the  sole  external 
instrument. 

It  will  be  remembered  that  this  external  instru- 
ment (Baptism)  is  made  absolutely  necessary  to  sal- 
vation by  Oxford  Divines — there  is  no  regeneration, 
no  justification,  and  therefore  no  entrance  to  Heaven, 
without  it ;  before  it  is  applied,  faith  is  dead  and  in- 
capable of  any  instrumentality,  except  as  it  prepares 
for,  or  leads  to  Baptism,  or  except  as  "Restitution" 
of  stolen  goods,  on  the  part  of  a  thief,  would  be  in- 
strumental in  Justification.^  In  Baptism,  and  by  the 
sole  instrumentality  of  Baptism,  while  Faith  is  in 
the  act  of  being  made  alive  and  regenerate  and  jus- 
tified, and  therefore  before  it  is  capable  of  any  justi- 
fying agency;  in  and  by  Baptism,  we  are  fully  jus- 
tified from  all  original  and  all  actual  sin.    After  Bap- 


'  Pusey's  Letter,  p.  44.  Newman  on  Justification,  p.  259.  sjyewman 
on  Justification,  p.  275. 


349 


tism,  Faith,  which  as  yet  has  been  no  instrument  at 
all,  only  a  Forerunner,"  becomes  ''the  symbol" 
and  "  Representative"  of  Baptism,  sustaining  only 
what,  by  that  sole  external  instrument,  has  been  al- 
ready accomplished.  But  even  now  its  instrumentali- 
ty is  "  not  that  of  conveying  but  only  of  symbolizing" 
the  sole  external  instrument.  Let  the  virtue  of  Bap- 
tism cease,  and  Faith  is  dead.  Thus  its  sole  inter- 
nal instrumentality  is  strictly  "  secondary  and  sub- 
ordinate" to  that  of  Baptism.  It  is  a  sole  instrument 
so  far  as  the  tools  of  the  apprentice,  working  for  his 
Master,  are  the  sole  instruments  of  that  Master. 
The  instrument  of  the  Master,  and  the  only  one  to 
be  mentioned,  is  the  apprentice.  The  instruments  of 
the  Apprentice  are  his  chisel,  saw,  plane,  &c.  And 
so  according  to  Oxford  Divinity,  the  sole  instrument 
of  God  in  our  Justification  is  Baptism.  The  sole 
instrument  of  Baptism  is  Faith.  But  no ;  the  paral- 
lel is  more  complete.  Faith,  in  this  system,  is  no 
more  the  sole  instrument  of  Baptism,  than  the  saw 
or  plane  is  the  sole  instrument  of  the  carpenters'  ap- 
prentice. He  must  use  divers  tools — one  is  no  more 
the  instrument  of  his  trade  than  others;  and  so  of 
faith  in  Oxfordism.  It  is  expressly  denied  to  have 
any  distinction  in  the  office  of  Justification,  after 
Baptism,  which  all  other  graces  have  not.  ''We 
are  saved  by  Christ's  mercy  and  that,  not  through 
faith,  but  through  faith  and  all  graces:'^  Thus  love 
may  as  well  be  called  the  sole  instrument,  as  faith  ; 
and  so  of  "joy,  peace,  long-suflfering,  gentleness," 
and  every  other  of  the  fruits  of  the  Spirit. 


•  Newman  on  Justification,  p.  281. 


350 


Such  then  bein^  the  amount  of  the  sense  in  which 
Faith  is  considered,  in  this  divinity,  as  the  sole  in- 
ternal inst7mment  and  such  being  the  eminent  su- 
periority of  Baptism,  in  every  respect  as  an  instru-  % 
ment ;  v^hat  shall  we  say  of  the  wisdom,  sufficiency, 
propriety,  common  decency  of  the  three  Articles 
connected  most  nearly  with  this  subject,  viz :  on 
^'Justification,''''  on  ''Good  Works''  which  are  the 
fruits  of  Faith,  and  on  "  Works  before  Justification," 
when  they  speak  so  particularly  cf  Faith  only" 
in  Justification,  and  do  not  so  much  as  advert  to  the 
existence  of  any  other  instrument?  what  shall  we 
think  of  the  Homily  to  w^hich  we  are  referred,  in  the 
eleventh  Article,  for  a  fuller  explanation  of  the  sub- 
ject of  Justification,  when  we  find  it  so  full  of 
earnest  preaching  on  the  sole  instrumentality  of 
faith,  as  the  only  thing  which  St.  Paul  "declareth, 
upon  the  behalf  of  man  concerning  his  justification," 
and  yet  scarcely  the  least  mention  of  Baptism,  and 
that,  not  in  any  way  as  making  it  an  instrument  of 
Justification?  How  can  we  believe  in  the  common- 
sense,  not  to  speak  of  the  common  truth  and  faith- 
fulness of  our  Reformers  that,  w^hile  professedly  un- 
folding all  that  is  necessary  to  the  "  Salvation  of  all 
Mankind,'''  whether  baptized  or  unbaptized,  in  a  hea- 
then, or  a  christian  land;  especially  when  setting 
themselves  particularly  to  the  answering  of  the  ques- 
tion "what  is  the  mean  whereby  we  must  apply  the 
fruits  of  Christ's  death  unto  our  deadly  w^ound,"  the 
very  question  which,  Hooker  says,  lies  at  the  begin- 
ning of  the  controversy  with  the  Church  of  Rome, 
on  the  subject  of  Justification,  and  w^hen  they  so 
earnestly  and  frequently  repeat  that    the  only  mean 


351 


and  instrument  of  salvation  required  of  our  parts  is 
faith  r  and  when,  if  Oxford  representations  be  true, 
that  same  faith  is  no  sole  instrument  at  all,  and  Bap- 
tism is  the  only  efficient  instrument  in  any  peculiar 
sense ;  what  shall  we  think  of  our  Reformers  when 
all  this  language  concerning  Faith  is  left  entirely 
unchecked,  unexplained,  and  Baptism,  as  in  any 
sense  an  instrument  of  Justification,  is  not  men- 
tioned ?  The  utter  absurdity  of  supposing  them  capa- 
ble of  such  representations  had  they  believed  the 
doctrine  of  Oxford  Divinity,  on  this  subject,  is  suffi- 
cient evidence  that  between  this  system  and  theirs, 
there  is  truly  a  great  gulf  fixed. 

Another  method  of  escape  from  the  plain  doctrine 
of  the  Church-standards  concerning  Faith,  is  seen 
in  the  following  extract  from  Mr.  Newman  on  Justi- 
fication.   Of  the  Homilies,  he  says : 

These  are  addressed,  not  to  Heathens  but  to  Christians,  they  are 
practical  and  popular  exhortations  to  Christians.  They  inform  a 
baptized  congregation,  or,  as  they  speak,  '  dear  Christians,'  *  good 
Christian  people,'  how  they  may  be  saved,  not  how  God  will  deal 
with  the  heathen.  They  are  not  missionary  discourses  ;  directing 
pagans  how  to  proceed  in  order  to  be  justified,  but  are  composed  for 
the  edification  of  those  who  through  God's  mercy  are  already  'dear- 
ly beloved  in  Christ.'  And  as  regards  the  point  before  us,  they  lay 
down  '  what  the  lively  and  true  faith  of  a  Christian  man  is.'  Clear, 
however,  as  this  is,  at  first  sight,  1  will  make  some  extracts  from 
them,  to  impress  it  upon  the  mind. 

"Take  for  instance  the  very  passage  I  quoted  in  the  opening,  in 
which  faith  is  called  the  sole  instrument  of  justification  ;  it  will  be 
found  the  writer  is  teaching  a  Christian  congregation  what  they 
must  do.  He  does  not,  cannot  say  with  St.  Peter,  '  Be  baptized — 
every  one  of  you,  for  the  remission  of  sins ;'  that  sacred  remedy 
has  been  long  ago  applied  and  may  not  be  repeated.  What  is  left, 
then,  after  sinning  but,  as  it  were,  to  renew  their  Baptism,  or  at  least 
its  virtue,  by  faith,  as  'the  only  instrument  of  salvation  now  left  un- 


352 


to  us."*  And  this  is  why  stress  is  laid  upon  a  ^steadfast,  not  a  waver- 
ing faith;'  he  does  not  simply  say  lively,  but  steadfast,  because  faith 
is  to  be  the  abiding,  sustaining  means  of  justification,  or,  in  the 
words  of  the  text,  '  By  faith  we  stand.'  All  this,  shows  that  when 
the  Homily  speaks  of  faith  as  an  instrument,  it  means  a  sustaining 
instrument ;  what  the  primiary  instrument  is,  being  quite  a  separate 
question.  Those  who  now  speak  of  faith  as  the  sole  means  of  justi- 
fication, too  commonly  consider  the  mass  of  Christians  unregener- 
ate,  and  call  them  out  of  their  supposed  heathen  state,  through  faith, 
as  the  sole  initiation  into  Christ's  kingdom. 

<'  But  it  may  be  said  there  is  nothing  about  Baptism  here ;  let  us 
then  turn  to  the  Homily  on  Salvation  or  Justification,  to  which  the 
Article  refers,  where  we  shall  find  that  doctrine  clearly  stated, 
though  it  does  not  enter  into  the  scope  of  the  Homily  already  cited. 
*  Infants,  being  baptized  and  dying  in  their  infancy,  are  by  this  Sacri- 
fice washed  from  their  sins,  brought  to  God's  favor,  and  m.ade  His 
children,  and  inheritors  of  His  kingdom  of  Heaven.  And  they, 
which  in  act  or  deed  do  sin  after  their  Baptism^  when  they  turn 
again  to  God  unfeignedly,'  that  is,  come  to  God  m  faith,  as  the  Ho- 
mily directly  goes  on  to  say,  '  they  are  likewise  washed  by  this  Sa- 
crifice from  their  sins.'  Here  is  distinct  mention  of  faith  justifying 
a/ifer  Baptism,  but  no  mention  of  its  justifying  &c/bre  Baptism  ;  on 
the  contrary.  Baptism  is  expressly  said  to  effect  the  first  justification. 
The  writer  proceeds  :  This  is  that  justification  or  righteousness 
which  St.  Paul  speaks  of,  when  he  saith,  '  No  man  is  justified  by 
the  works  of  the  Law,  but  freely  by  faith  in  Jesus  Christ.'  So  it 
seems  that  St.  Paul  too,  when  he  speaks  of  justification  through 
faith,  speaks  of  faith  as  subordinate  to  Baptism,  not  as  the  immediate 
initiation  into  a  justified  state. 

Now  the  meaning  of  tliis  desperate  leap  from  out 
of  the  difficulties  with  which  the  Homilies  surround 
the  doctrine  of  these  gentlemen  is  this,  viz:  The 
Homilies  are  addressed  to  Baptized  persons,  conse- 
quently to  Justified  persons.  The  whole  application 
therefore  of  all  their  strong  language,  as  to  faith  be- 
ing    the  sole  instrument"  of  Justification,  applies 


'  Newman  on  Justification,  pp.  260 — 263. 


353 


exclusively  to  persons  already  justified,  to  whom 
therefore  faith  can  only  be  justifying,  as  a  siistai  mn, 
not  as  an  or icj mating,  instrument.  Such  being  its 
restricted  application,  we  are  forbidden  to  infer  one 
word  from  the  Homilies,  as  to  faith  having  any  sole 
justifpng  office,  or  any  such  office  in  any  sense,  but 
as  repentance  and  restitution  '  also  have,  in  the  case 
of  persons  repenting  and  believing,  but  as  yet  un- 
baptized.  To  them  it  is  not  the  sole  instrument,  or 
any  instrument :  but  Baptism  is  the  only  instrument 
of  their  Justification.  All  this  proceeds  upon  the  as- 
sumption that  the  faith  of  the  unbaptized  is  necessa- 
rily dead,  not  having  the  love  of  God  shed  abroad  in 
the  heart;  while  the  faith  of  the  baptized  is  living; 
that  the  first  therefore  is  inspirative ;  the  second  jus- 
tifying and  Baptism  makes  the  infinite  difference. 

Now  all  this  is  encumbered  and  crushed  by  the 
weight  of  the  following  grave  difficulties. 

1.  The  Homilies  know  of  but  two  kinds  of  faith, 
the  one  a  living  faith,  the  other  such  as  devils  and 
ungodly  men  have  in  common.    For  example : 

That  faith  which  bringeth  forth,  without  repentance,  either  evil 
works,  or  no  good  works,  is  not  a  right,  pure,  and  lively  faith :  but  a 
dead,  devilish,  counterfeit,  and  feigned  faith,  as  St.  Paul  and  St.  James 
call  it.  For  even  the  devils  know  and  believe  that  Christ  was  born 
of  a  virgin  ;  that  he  fasted  forty  days  and  forty  nights  without  meat 
and  drink;  that  he  wrought  all  kind  of  miracles,  declaring  himself 
very  God:  they  believe  also,  that  Christ  for  our  sakes  suffered  a 
most  painful  death,  to  redeem  us  from  everlasting  death ;  and  that 
he  rose  again  from  death  the  third  day  :  they  believe  that  he  ascended 
into  heaven  :  and  that  he  sittelh  on  the  right  hand  of  the  Father ;  and 
at  the  last  end  of  this  world  shall  come  again,  and  judge  both  the 
quick  and  the  dead.  These  articles  of  our  faith  the  devils  believe  ; 
and  so  they  believe  all  things  that  be  written  in  the  New  and  Old 
Testament  to  be  true :  and  yet  for  all  this  faith  they  be  but  devils, 
45 


354 


remaining  still  in  their  dannnable  estate,  lacking  the  very  true  Chris- 
tian faith. 

*'  The  right  and  true  Christian  faith  is,  not  only  to  believe  that 
Holy  Scripture,  and  all  the  aforesaid  articles  of  our  faith,  are  true  ; 
but  also  to  have  a  sure  trust  and  confidence  in  God's  merciful  pro- 
mises,  to  be  saved  from  everlasting  damnation  by  Christ ;  whereof 
doth  follow  a  loving  heart  to  obey  his  commandments.  And  this 
true  Christian  faith  neither  any  devil  hath  ;  nor  yet  any  man,  which 
in  the  outward  profession  of  his  mouth,  and  in  his  outward  receiving 
of  the  sacraments,  in  coming  to  the  church,  and  in  all  other  outward 
appearances,  seemeth  to  be  a  Christian  man,  and  yet  in  his  living 
and  deed  sheweth  the  contrary."^ 

Thus  it  follows  that  when  a  person  comes  to  be 
baptized  in  adult  years,  as  the  Jailor  of  Philippi,  the 
three  thousand  on  the  Pentecost,  Cornelius  and  his 
household,  who  had  already  received  the  Holy  Ghost; 
when  according  to  the  requisitions  of  the  Church  he 
has  true  "  repentance  whereby  he  forsakes  sin,  and 
faith  whereby  he  steadfastly  believes  the  promises 
of  God,"  so  that  the  officiating  Minister  can  speak 
of  him  as  ''^  truly  repenting  and  coming  unto  God  by 
faith^^  that,  with  all  this,  his  faith  is  as  dead  as  that 
of  the  devils,  he  hath  not  the  love  of  God  shed 
abroad  in  his  heart ;  his  repentance  consequently  is 
dead  also,  not  the  godly  sorrow,  which  worketh  re- 
pentance to  salvation,  since  this  cannot  be  where 
true  love  is  not.  No  doctrine  can  bear  such  an  ab- 
surdity as  this. 

Again.  If  all  that  is  said  about  believing  unto 
Justification,  or  any  thing  also  in  the  Homilies,  has 
reference  to  those  who  are  already  Justified,  then  we 
have  the  singular  phenomenon  of  a  whole  volume  of 
discourses  upon  all  the  great  doctrines  and  duties  of 


1  Homily  of  Salvation,  p.  3. 


355 


religion,  especially  a  whole  discourse  on  ''the  Salva- 
tion of  all  Mankind,"  intended  to  teach  of  course  how 
all  mankind  are  to  be  saved,  the  baptized  and  the 
unbaptized  being  alike  parts  of  all  mankind,  and 
yet  not  a  word  in  this  discourse,  or  any  other  of  this 
volume  which  teaches  how  any  are  to  be  saved  but 
the  baptized,  who  may  be  about  one  tenth  of  the 
whole  population  of  the  globe.  We  continually 
meet  the  unbaptized ;  we  have  them  always  in  our 
congregations;  we  are  commanded  to  go  and  preach 
the  gospel  to  all  the  hundreds  of  millions  of  the  hea- 
then, yet  our  Church  has  entirely  omitted  to  say  a 
word  in  her  Homilies,  as  to  how  any  of  these  are  to 
be  saved,  on  the  principle,  as  is  expressed  in  a  late 
British  Critic,  that  ''the  Church  is  out  of  her  place 
converting  in  a  Christian  country." 

But  again,  another  difficulty.  The  Homily  of 
Salvation  is  referred  to,  by  the  Article  of  Justifica- 
tion, for  a  larger  explication  of  its  meaning,  in  these 
words :  "  That  we  are  justified  hy  faith  only,  is  a 
most  rvJiolesome  doctrine,  <^c.,  as  is  more  largely  ex- 
pressed in  the  Homily  of  Justification.''^  Hence  it  is 
manifest  that  the  Article  and  the  Homily  are  on  pre- 
cisely the  same  doctrine,  and  of  course  must  be  ad- 
dressed to  the  same  persons,  or  the  same  condi- 
tion of  man,  or  else  the  one  would  not  be  an  ex- 
pression of  the  other.  But  the  Oxford  Divines  are 
forced  to  apply  them  to  precisely  opposite  conditions 
of  persons,  and  make  them  teach  entirely  different 
doctrines.  The  Homily,  as  we  have  seen,  is  restricted 
to  the  Baptized,  and  teaches  Justification  and  Faith, 
only  as  they  are  concerned.  But  as  to  the  Article  in 
question,  Dr.  Pusey  says,  "     does  not  speak  of  a 


356 


state  in  which  we  ever  actually  were;''  "iX  does  not 
apply  to  us"  *'who  have  been  born  within  the 
Church  and  who  were  never  left  to  our  mere  natural 
powers,  having  been  in  infancy  justified  and  cleansed 
from  all  sin,  and  had  the  grace  of  Christ  given,  and 
fresh  supplies  pledged  to  us."  Mr.  Newman  also 
distinguishes  between  the  faith  of  the  Article  as 
'^onhj  the  common  belief  of  the  Articles  of  our  Faith'^ 
and  that  of  the  Homilies  as  "  also  a  true  trust  and 
confidence  of  the  mercy  of  God,''  &c, — in  other  words 
a  justifying  faith.'  So  then  the  Article  refers  only 
to  the  faith  of  the  unbaptized ;  but  its  expository 
Homily,  to  the  baptized ;  the  former  to  the  unregen- 
erated  and  unjustified,  the  latter  to  the  regenerate 
and  justified ;  the  one  teaches  of  faith  in  those  who 
are  yet  in  their  sins;  the  other  of  faith  in  those  who 
are  children  of  God  ;  and  these  two  descriptions  of 
faith  are  said  to  be  as  radically  different  as  the  faith 
of  devils  and  the  faith  of  true  Christians,  and  yet  the 
Homily  is  a  larger  expression  of  the  doctrine  of  the 
Article,  and  both  are  on  the  Salvation  of  all  Man- 
kind, the  Homily  having  the  title  in  full,  the  Article, 
in  the  expression — ''Justification  of  Man."  How 
can  these  things  be? 

Again,  another  difficulty.  In  the  second  Homily 
on  the  Passion  of  Christ,  where  the  sole  instrumen- 
tality of  faith  is  so  much  insisted  on  (and  in  the  ex- 
tracts before  given  therefrom,)  the  only  example  se- 
lected in  illustration  of  the  how  we  are  to  apply 
Christ's  death  and  passion"  is  the  case  of  the  unbap- 
tized Jailor  of  Philippi.      Here  is  the  mean,  (says 


'  Newman  on  Justification,  p.  296. 


357 


the  Homily,)  whereby  we  must  attain  eternal  life; 
namely  faith.  For  as  St.  Paul  being  demanded  of 
the  keeper  of  the  prison  '  what  he  should  do  to  be 
saved,'  made  this  answer,  'Believe  in  the  Lord 
Jesus,  so  shalt  thou  and  thy  house  be  saved.' "  Thus 
the  instrumentality  of  faith,  in  an  unbaptized  jailor ; 
a  faith,  which  according  to  this  system, was  ''dead," 
"  vague,"  "  inoperative,"  and  "  as  different  from  that 
of  the  baptized,  as  that  of  devils  is  from  a  living 
faith,  is  taken,  in  a  discourse,  addressed,  we  are  told, 
exclusively  to  the  baptized  and  justified,  and  set  up 
as  an  example  of  the  faith  by  which,  as  with  "  a  sole 
instrument,"  theij  are  to  apply  the  death  of  Christ. 

It  is  of  consequence  to  note  that  the  Homily,  in 
this  reference  to  the  direction  of  the  Apostle,  as  to 
how  the  unbaptized  Jailor  was  to  apply  the  death  of 
Christ,  does  not  mention  Baptism,  either  in  this  part, 
or  elsewhere,  although  the  fact  that  the  Jailor  was 
baptized  is  so  immediately  connected  with  the  cited 
passage. 

Again,  another  difficulty.  Mr.  Newman,  in  the 
extract,  from  his  pages,  last  given,  dwells  upon  the 
use  of  the  word,  steadfast,''^  as  designating  the  dis- 
tinctive nature  of  the  Faith  of  which  the  Homilies 
speak.  "He,  (the  author  of  the  Homily,)  does  not 
simply  say  lively  but  steadfast  faith,  because  faith 
is  to  be  the  abiding,  sustaining  means  of  Justifica- 
tion" to  the  baptized.  Hence  we  are  of  course  to  in- 
fer that  its  steadfastness  is  an  evidence  and  quality 
of  its  living  and  justifying  nature.  But  does  the 
Church  speak  of  no  other  faith  but  that  of  the  bap- 
tized as  steadfast  ?  What  does  she  require  of  persons 
to  be  baptized  ?  The  Catechism  answers  :  "  Repent- 


358 


ance  whereby  they  forsake  sin,  and  faith  whereby 
they  steadfastly  believe  the  promises  of  God''  To 
have  a  faith  that  steadfastly  beUeves  and  to  have  a 
steadfast  faith,  v^e  suppose  are  the  same  thing.  So 
then,  as  the  Jailor's  faith  is  made,  by  the  Homily,  an 
illustration  of  the  faith  of  the  baptized,  so  does  Mr. 
Newman,  in  making  steadfastness  the  characteristic 
of  justifying  faith,  identify  it  with  that  of  the  unbap- 
tized. 

We  need  not  go  into  a  proof,  as  might  easily  be 
made,  from  the  Baptismal  and  Communion  Offices, 
that  our  Church  employs  substantially  the  same  lan- 
guage for  the  repentance  and  faith  required  for  Bap- 
tism, and  those  required  for  the  Eucharist;  and  con- 
sequently that  she  knows  nothing  of  any  difference 
between  the  sole  instrument  of  Justification  to  the 
unbaptized  and  the  baptized.  But  it  is  making  too 
much  of  such  a  refuge  as  this  of  our  Oxford  divines, 
to  be  spending  so  much  time  upon  it.  A  greater 
condemnation  they  could  not  write  upon  their  sys- 
tem than  to  show  that  it  cannot  be  sustained  without 
making  this  awful  difference  between  the  best  faith 
before  Baptism,  and  the  weakest  faith  after  Baptism; 
between  what  the  unbaptized  but  penitent  Jailor 
must  do  to  be  saved,  and  what  the  baptized  infidel 
must  do;  on  the  mere  ground  that  the  latter,  no 
matter  what  his  present  blasphemy,  was  once  regen- 
erate and  justified,  the  possession  of  an  angelic  na- 
ture," the  temple  of  God's  presence,  the  wearer  of 
the  Shekinah  the  wedding  garment  of  God's  in- 
dwelling glory ;  while  the  former,  though  repenting 
and  believing,  has  not  been  baptized. 

Again,  another  difficulty.    When  the  plain  mean- 


359 


ing  and  application  of  the  Homilies  on  the  subject  of 
faith  cannot  otherwise  be  escaped,  we  are  told  that 
our  Homilies  are  popidar  Discourses'''  Thus,  when 
it  is  said  that  our  Homilies  speak  of  Faith  as  a 
mere  trust,  or  a  fiduciary  apprehension  of  God's 
mercy,"  Mr.  Newman  answers :  Certainly  they 
do,  hut  they  are  popular  addresses.  It  is  quite  ano- 
ther thing  when  statements  which  have  a  true  and 
impressive  hearing,  are  taken  as  adequate  and  accu- 
rate definitions  oi  the  matter  in  hand."  ''The  Ho- 
milies being  popular  discourses  speak  of  it  practical- 
ly."^ Mr.  Knox  was  compelled  by  the  same  system 
to  resort  to  the  same  expedient  for  its  protection 
against  the  plain  dealing  of  the  Homilies.  "The 
Homily  of  Justification,  (he  says,)  whatever  may  be 
the  case  with  the  other  Homilies  was  written  not  to 
lay  down  theological  definitions,  but  rather  to  furnish 
useful  popular  instruction."^ 

Now  here  is  a  singular  position.  The  Article  of 
Justification,  being  necessarily  brief,  refers  for  a 
more  extended  expression  of  its  doctrine  to  the  Ho- 
mily on  the  same  subject.  The  latter  is  popular  in 
its  cast;  but  still  it  is  the  larger  explication  of  the 
Article.  Now  what  sort  of  explication  is  it,  if  when 
it  expressly  tells  us,  for  example^  that  Faith  is  "  trust 
in  God's  mercy,"  or  "an  apprehension  of  God's  mer- 
cy," through  Christ  and  "the  sole  instrument  on  the 
behalf  of  man  in  his  Justification,"  instead  of  receiv- 
ing it  as  it  is,  we  are  to  consider  it  only  as  having 
"a  true  and  impressive  bearing;"  and  not  as  con- 
taining "  adequate  definitions'"  of  the  truth;  hearing 


»  Newman  on  Justification,  p.  298.  2  Remains,  vol.  1,'pp.  293,  294. 


360 


upon  the  truth  indeed  but  not  declaring  it  plainly ; 
so  that  instead  of  an  explication,  it  needs  itself  to  be 
so  expounded  as  to  show  that,  when  it  defines  faith 
to  be  trust,  and  a  fiduciary  apprehension  of  God's 
mercy,  and  when  it  says  that  "  faith  is  the  only  mean 
of  applying  the  merits  of  Christ,"  it  is  not  to  be  taken 
in  any  such  sense. 

"  I  have  always  thought,  that  Useful  Popular  Instruction,  in  the 
matter  of  Christian  Doctrine,  was  a  faithful  confimunication,  in  a 
familiar  and  popular  form,  of  the  Doctrinal  System  maintained  by 
any  particular  given  Church  ;  So  that  the  difference  between  such 
communication,  and  communication  made  in  a  scholastic  form, 
should  consist,  not  in  a  departure  from  the  Doctrinal  System  in 
question,  but  merely  in  a  delivering  of  it  through  the  medium  of 
familiar  and  popular  and  unscholastic  language."^ 

What  marvellous  facility  this  consideration  of  the 
popular  character  of  the  Homilies  affords,  in  making 
w^hat  they  declare  a  mere  saying  and  of  no  manner 
of  weight,  appears  from  the  following  most  remarka- 
ble passage  of  Mr.  Newman : 

<'Letus  then  now  turn  to  the  first  book  of  Homilies;  which  will 
be  found  clearly  to  teach,  that,  whereas  faith  never  is  solitary,  it  is 
but  said  to  be  the  sole  justifier,  and  that  with  a  view  to  inculcate 
another  doctrine  not  said,  viz :  that  all  is  of  grace. 

"  This  sentence  that  we  be  justified  by  faith  'only,  is  not  so  meant 
by  them,'  the  Fathers,  '  that  the  said  justifying  faith  is  alone  in  man, 
without  true  repentance,  hope,  charity,  dread  and  the  fear  of  God, 
at  any  time  or  season.''  Again  in  a  passage  which  has  been  already 
cited,  we  are  told,  '  Faith  doth  not  shut  out  repentance,  love,  dread 
and  the  fear  of  God,  to  be  joined  with  faith  in  every  one  that  is  justi- 
fied, but  it  shutteth  them  out  from  the  oj^ce  of  justifying.' 

"  VV^hat  is  the  ofiice  here  spoken  of?  not  the  office  of  conveying, 
but  of  symbolizing  justification.  For  instance.  As  great  and  godly 
a  virtue  as  the  lively  faith  is,  yet  it  putteth  vs  from  itself  and  re- 


'  Faber's  Prim.  Doc.  of  Justification,  p.  68. 


361 


mitteth  or  appointeth  us  unto  Christ,  for  to  have  only  by  Him,  re- 
mission  of  our  sins  or  justification.  So  that  our  faith  in  Christ  (as 
it  were)  saith  unto  us  that,  '  It  is  not  I  that  takeaway  your  sins,  but 
it  is  Christ  only,  and  to  Him  only  I  send  you  for  that  purpose,  for- 
saking therein  all  your  good  virtues,  words,  thoughts,  and  works, 
and  only  putting  your  trust  in  Christ.'  It  is  plain  that  '  faith  only' 
does  not  apprehend,  apply,  or  appropriate  Christ's  merits;  but  it 
only  preaches  them  ;  and  thus  surely  conveys  a  'most  wholesome 
doctrine,  and  very  full  of  comfort.' 

"The  doctrine,  then,  on  this  interpretation,  is  not  a  practical  rule 
but  an  abstract  principle.  Accordingly  it  will  be  observed,  the  Ho- 
milies do  not  attempt  to  explain  its  wording  literally,  but  declare  it 
to  be  a  sentence^  saying,  or  form  of  speech,  one  too,  which,  when 
drawn  out.  assumes  quite  a  new  shape,  as  far  as  its  letter  is  con- 
cerned. 

"  For  instance — '  This  saying,  that  we  be  justified  by  faith  only, 
freely,  and  without  works,  is  spoken  for  to  take  away  clearly  all 
merit  of  our  works,  as  being  unable  to  deserve  our  justification  at 
God's  hands  ;'  the  drift  is  given,  not  an  interpretation.  The  writer 
proceeds,  '  and  thereby  most  plainly  to  express  the  weakness  of  man 
and  the  goodness  of  God  ;  the  great  infirmity  of  ourselves,  and  the 
might  and  power  of  God  ;  the  imperfeclness  of  our  ow  n  works,  and 
the  most  abundant  grace  of  our  Saviour  Christ ;  and  thereby  wholly 
to  ascribe  the  merit  and  deserving  of  our  justification  unto  Christ 
only,  and  His  most  precious  blood-shedding.'  Can  words  be  clearer 
to  prove  that  faith  is  considered  to  justify  not  as  an  instrument,  but 
as  a  symbol ;  it  is  to  do  nothing,  but  it  is  to  '  say,^  to  '  express,^  to 
^  ascribe,^  to  ^  glory,''  to  warn,  to  bring  good  tidings. 

*  In  like  manner  in  the  third  part  of  the  same  Homily  :  '  The  very 
true  meaning  of  iK\s  proposition  or  saying,  we  be  justified  by  faith 
only  (according  to  the  meaning  of  the  old  ancient  authors,)  is  this, 
we  put  our  faith  in  Christ,  that  ice  be  justified  by  Him  only.  Jus- 
tification by  faith  only  is  here  said  to  be  a  saying :  consider  how 
astonished  and  pained  we  should  be,  w  ere  the  doctrine  of  the  Atone- 
ment, or  of  Christ's  divinity  said  to  be  a  proposition,  saying  or  form 
of  speaking."* 

In  a  note  to  some  of  these  passages,  we  read  that 


'  Xewman  on  Justification,  pp.  282 — 285. 

46 


362 


such  an  expression  as  faith  alone  justifies^  is  the 
emblem  of  a  principle,  not  a  literal  statement,''  that 
when  faith  is  said  to  ''send  us  to  Christ,''  it  means 
only  that  it  ''preaches  Christ,"  and  again,  that  "  the 
Homily  does  not  so  much  affirm  that  faith  only  does 
justify,  '  but  is  said  to  justify.'  " 

The  following  passage  is  still  more  curious. 

«'  Faith  is  said  to  justify,  not  that  it  really  justifies  more  than  the 
other  graces  ;  but  it  has  this  peculiarity,  that  it  signifies  in  its  very 
nature,  that  nothing  of  ours  justifies  us.  or  it  typifies  the  freeness  of 
our  justification.  Faith  heralds  forth  divine  grace,  and  its  name  is 
a  sort  of  representation  of  it,  as  opposed  to  works.  Hence  it  may 
well  be  honoured  above  the  other  graces,  and  placed  nearer  Christ 
than  the  rest,  as  if  it  were  distinct  from  them,  and  before  them,  and 
above  them,  though  it  be  not.  It  is  suitably  said  to  justify  us,  be« 
cause  it  says  itself  that  it  does  not,  so  to  speak,  as  a  sort  of  reward 
to  it.  Tn  so  determining,  the  Reformers  are  not  laying  down  a  prac- 
tical direction  how  to  proceed  in  order  to  be  justified,  what  is  re- 
quired of  us  ybr  justification,  but  a  large  principle  or  doctrine  ever 
to  be  held  and  cherished,  that  in  ourselves  we  deserve  eternal  ruin, 
and  are  saved  by  Christ's  mercy,  and  that  not  through  faith  only, 
but  through  faith  and  all  graces."* 

Now  what  have  we  here,  in  illustration  of  the 
popular  EXPLiCATiox  given  in  the  Homily  of  Sal- 
vation, of  the.  Article  to  which  is  is  attached?  "  The 
d7'ift  is  given,  not  an  interpretation ! "  There  is 
no  attempt  '-to  explain  literally  the  wording  of 
the  doctrine  of  faith  in  the  Article."  Singular 
explication!  That  doctrine  is  declared  to  be  only 
a  ''sentence,  saying  or  form  of  speech"  which  "  ?vhen 
drawn  out  assumes  cpttite  a  new  shape'  from  that  of 
its  literal  meaninor.  "  Faith  is  but  said  to  be  the 
sole  justifier."   It  "  does  not  justify  as  an  instrument, 


'  Newman,  p.  281. 


363 


but  as  a  sijmhol'''  Its  whole  office,  as  the  only  mean 
and  instrument,  of  applying  the  merits  of  Christ, 
consists  in  its  preacJiing  them;  it  is  to  do  nothing, 
but  it  is  to  ''say,'"  to  ''impress,'"  to  "ascribe"  to 
"  glory"  to  "warn"  to  "  hring  good  tidings"  Faith 
is  made  to  have  about  as  much  justifying  efficacy  as 
any  preacher  of  the  gospel  who  tells  the  sinner  of 
Christ  and  his  salvation.  "  Justification  by  faith  on- 
ly" is  treated  as  a  mere  "saying."  More  indeed 
than  any  other  graces,  "  Faith  is  said  to  Justify ;  but 
not  that  it  really  justifies  more  than  the  other  graces." 
Its  only  peculiarity  is  that  "  it  typifies  the  freeness 
of  our  justification."  "  Its  name  is  a  sort  of  repre- 
sentation of  divine  grace."  On  this  account,  alone, 
is  it  so  honoured  in  the  Scriptures,  and  the  Articles, 
and  Homilies,  above  the  other  graces  ;  as  if  it  were 
distinct  from,  before,  and  above  them  ;  though  it  be 
not.  It  is  rewarded  for  this  single  peculiarity  of  be- 
ing in  name  a  type  or  symbol  of  grace,  by  being 

said  to  justify  us,"  because  "  it  says  it  does  not." 

Thus  all  the  labour  and  earnestness  of  the  re- 
iterated declarations  of  the  Scriptures,  and  Articles, 
and  Homilies,  concerning  the  sole  instrumentality  of 
faith,  are  evaporated  into  a  mere  laudatory  saying  ; 
a  distinction  of  words ;  an  ascription  in  terms  of  what 
exists  not  in  reality.  And  thus  is  all  sober,  grave, 
dignified  interpretation  put  to  shame.  Thus  are  the 
Standards  of  our  Church  brought  into  contempt. 
And  thus  is  the  common  sense  of  every  man,  of  the 
most  ordinary  understanding,  oiitraged.  The  neces- 
sity of  such  refuges  is  condemnation  absolute. 


CHAPTER  X. 


THE  DOCTRINE  OF  OXFORD  DIVINITY  AS  TO  BAPTISMAL  JUSTIFICA- 
TION, COxMPAUED  WITH  THAT  OF  THE  ANGLICAN  CHURCH. 

Recapitulation  of  the  Oxford  and  Romish  Doctrines. — Difterence  between  re- 
mission of  Original  Sin  as  held  by  the  Anglican  Church,  and  the  Oxford 
Divines — Testimony  of  Jackson — Baptismal  Justification  of  Adults — Jl  priori 
reason  for  believing  that  the  Anglican  and  Oxford  doctrine  are  diverse  on 
this  head — Silence  of  the  Articles  and  Homilies  unaccountable  if  the  Oxford 
doctrine  were  that  of  the  Church.  Language  of  the  Articles  and  Homilies  ir- 
reconcilable with  the  Oxford  doctrine — Language  of  Scripture,  Fathers, 
English  divines  needs  explanation — Evidence  of  necessity  of  other  interpre- 
tation than  Oxfordism  gives — Barrow — Beveridge — Hooper — Froth — Hook- 
er— Hall — Homilies — Usher — Beveridge — Inconsistencies  in  English  divines, 
according  to  the  Oxford  Interpretation — Barrow — Hooker — St.  Bernard — 
Jewel.  Inconsistencies  of  Augustine  and  other  Fathers  according  to  the  Ox- 
ford doctrine — True  doctrine  shown  from  Bishops  Hooper,  Beveridge,  and 
Taylor — Mode  of  Interpreting  the  strong  language  of  the  old  divines,  &c. — 
Bishop  Bethil's  mode  rejected  as  too  low — Strange  inconsistencies  of  Oxford 
divines — Mode  of  interpretation  illustrated  from  Augustine,  Jewel,  from  lan- 
guage of  Hooker,  &c. — Concerning  the  membership  of  infants  in  the  Church 
before  Baptism;  common  language  concerning  a  call  to  the  ministry  and 
language  of  Scripture  as  to  the  baptism  of  Christ — Further  illustration  from 
common  law-terms — application  to  language  of  Nowell's  Catechism — Pas- 
sages from  Whitgift,  and  Dr.  Haddon — Concluding  observations — Extract 
from  Bishop  Hopkins  on  the  Doctrine  of  Baptism. 

It  will  be  borne  in  mind  that  the  doctrine  of  Oxford 
Divinity,  on  the  subject  of  this  Chapter  embraces 
the  following  particulars,  viz  : 

L  That  Justification  is  so  inseparably  connected 
with  Baptism,  as  its  instrumental  cause,  or  mean  of 
conveyance,  that  before  its  reception  there  can  be  no 
justification  before  God ;  and,  upon  its  reception, 
whoever  does  not  impede  its  efficacy  by  hypocrisy, 
or  infidelity,  is  completely  justified. 


366 


2.  That  this  Baptismal  Justification,  consisting  in 
the  expulsion  of  sin,  by  the  infusion  of  righteous- 
ness, takes  quite  away  all  original  and  actual  sin. 

In  these  propositions  the  Church  of  Rome  and  the 
divines  of  Oxford  entirely  unite.  We  will  consider 
the  last,  first,  because  it  will  be  most  readily  dis- 
posed of 

First.  Is  it  the  doctrine  of  the  Anglican  Church, 
that  Justification  takes  away  all  Original,  as  well  as 
Actual  Sin  ? 

We  answer,  Yes,  unquestionahly  !  "  There  is  now 
no  condemnation  to  them  that  are  in  Christ  Jesus." 
But  we  shall  find  no  evidence,  but,  on  the  contrary, 
express  denial,  in  the  standards  of  our  Church,  that 
Justification  is  held  to  do  this,  in  any  degree,  accord- 
ing to  the  sense  in  which  the  proposition  is  used  by  our 
Oxford  Divines  and  the  Church  of  Rome. 

Only  two  passages  are  quoted  by  these  writers  in 
evidence  of  conformity  on  their  part  to  the  teaching 
of  the  Church,  in  this  particular, — both  from  the 
Homily  of  Salvation.  The  first  as  follows.  The 
Homily  has  been  speaking  of  the  fulfilling  of  the 
Law  and  the  suffering  of  its  penalty  by  Christ  for  us, 
and  thus  proceeds : 

"  Insomuch  that  Infants  being  baptized  and  dying  in  their  infan- 
cy, are  by  this  sacrifice  (of  Christ)  washed  from  their  sins,  brought 
to  God's  favour,  &c.  And  they  which  in  act  or  deed,  do  sin  after 
their  baptism,  when  they  turn  again  to  God  unfeignedly  they  are 
likewise  washed  by  this  sacrifice  from  their  sins,  in  such  sort  that 
there  remaineth  not  any  spot  of  sin  that  shall  be  imputed  to  their 
damnation.  This  is  that  Justification  which  St.  Paul  speaketh  of 
when  he  sayeth.  No  man  is  Justified  by  the  works  of  the  Law,  but 
freely  by  faith  in  Jesus  Christ."^ 


1  Homily  of  Salvation,  Part  1. 


367 


Again,  on  the  same  subject  of  Justification  the  Ho- 
mily says : 

"  We  must  tiust  only  in  God's  mercy  and  that  sacrifice  which 
the  Son  of  God  once  offered  for  us  on  the  cross  to  obtain  thereby 
God's  grace  and  remission,  as  well  of  our  original  sin,  in  baptism, 
as  of  all  actual  sin  committed  after  baptism,  if  we  truly  repent."^  &c. 

Now  it  is  manifest  that  both  of  these  passages  are 
upon  Justification — they  speak  of  Justification  from 
Original  Sin  and  from  Actual  Sin  in  precisely  the 
same  language.  But  we  have  already  showed  that 
Justification,  in  the  sense  of  this  Homily,  consists  in 
the  non-imputation  of  sin,  through  the  external  and 
imputed  righteousness  of  Christ  embraced  by  faith ; 
and  not  through  a  righteousness  imputed  and  inhe- 
rent. It  has  also  been  seen  that  since  Original  Sin, 
is  defined  by  our  Article  to  be  an  ''infection  of  na- 
ture,'^ which  is  not  all  taken  away,  but  ''remains 
even  in  the  Regenerate,''  and  ^'in  them  has  the  proper 
nature  of  sin,''  it  is  evident,  that  its  remission,  spoken 
of  in  the  above  extracts,  is  to  be  understood  simply 
in  reference  to  judicial  pardon,  and  cannot  refer  to 
its  actual  removal.  In  other  words  that  though  it 
remains,  even  in  the  unregenerate,  nevertheless 
through  the  imputation  of  the  righteousness  of  Christ, 
it  is  not  imputed  to  them  for  condemnation. 

But  very  far  from  this  is  the  sense  in  which  these 
passages  are  quoted  by  our  Oxford  divines.  Their 
doctrine  is  not  that  Original  Sin  is  not  imputed,  but 
does  not  exist  after  the  Baptism  of  Infants  and  Adults. 
It  is  quite  taken  away  in  fact,  as  well  as  in  imputa- 
tion.   It  is  remitted  by  being  expelled.    "  There  re- 


'  Homily  of  Salvation.  Part.  2. 


368 


maineth  not  any  spot  of  sin,"  not  merely  that  is  im- 
puted, but  that  can  be  said  to  he.  How  directly  this 
contradicts  the  Article  on  Original  Sin,  and  obliges 
them  to  imitate  the  refuge  of  Romanism,  in  chang- 
ing the  whole  doctrine  of  Original  Sin  so  as  to  suit 
their  doctrine  of  Justification,  has  been  already 
showed. 

Now  that  Original  Sin,  as  an  '-^infection  of  na- 
ture,''^  is  not  taken  away  in  Baptism,  our  Oxford  di- 
vines, if  they  will  not  hear  the  Article  of  the  Church, 
will  perhaps  listen  to  the  words  of  one  whom  they 
profess  so  highly  to  estimate,  as  the  learned  Dr. 
Jackson, 

He  says  that  the  Romish  Church  and  "  some  who 

HAVE  PROFESSED  THEMSELVES  MEMBERS  OF  THE  PRE- 
SENT ENGLISH  CHURCH,  tcach  that  Original  Sin  is  ut- 
terly taken  away,  or  that  our  Regeneration  is  instant- 
ly and  fully  wrought  by  the  Sacrament  of  Baptism. 
That  children  (he  replies)  rightly  baptized  are  truly 
regenerated  by  the  Spirit  of  God,  we  deny  not.  And 
in  case,  being  so  baptized,  they  die  before  they  come 
to  the  use  of  reason,  yet  ought  we  not  to  doubt  of 
their  salvation,  because  they  have,  by  baptism,  been 
made  partakers  of  Regeneration  in  such  a  measure  as 
is  requisite  and  sufficient  for  their  salvation  rvhilst 
they  are  Infants.  But  that  Original  Sin,  the  Lust 
of  the  flesh,  or  the  old  man,  should  be  utterly  extin- 
guished in  them  before  their  death,  we  must  deny''' 
"  If  Original  sin,  cr  the  Old  Man,  with  his  members, 
be  utterly  extinguished  in  young  Infants  by  Bap- 
tism, I  demand  how  possibly  they  could  revive  in 
the  same  parties,  as  soon  as  they  come  to  the  use  of 
reason?"   So  that  Baptism  is  rather  a.  Sacramental 


369 


Consecration  of  us  to  undertake  the  fight  with  the 
Worhs  of  our  flesh,  or  corruption  of  our  nature,  than 
an  utter  extinction  or  absolute  drorvning  of  those  ene- 
mies 

Thus  we  see  that  a  writer  than  whom  none  is 
more  confidently  claimed  by  the  advocates  of  this 
divinity  not  only  condemns  this,  its  doctrine,  as  un- 
true, and  not  the  doctrine  of  the  Church  of  England, 
but  as  the  "peculiar  property  of  the  Church  of  Rome. 

The  truth  manifestly  is  that  our  Church,  in  the 
Homilies,  above  quoted,  speaks  of  Original  Sin  be- 
ing remitted  in  the  Baptism  of  Infants,  precisely  as 
it  is  remitted  in  that  of  penitent  and  believing 
Adults;  and  she  speaks  of  its  remission  in  both  these 
cases,  precisely  as  she  speaks  of  the  remission  of  the 
actual  sins  of  Adults.  It  is  the  removal  not  of  the 
moral  heing,  but  of  the  judicial  condemnation  of  that 
which  "has  the  nature  of  sin."    In  infants,  Original 

J  Jackson's  Works,  iii.  pp,  99,  100.  Bishop  Hopkins  speaks  of  the  origin  of 
this  notion  of  the  removal  of  original  sin  by  baptism  as  a  novelty  among  Pro- 
testants of  his  time — "  Regeneration  (he  says)  begins  now  to  be  decried  by  as 
great  masters  in  Israel  as  ever  Nicodemus  was — they  think,  if  they  are  but 
baptized,  whereby  as  they  suppose,  the  guilt  of  original  sin  is  -washed  axuay,^* 
&c.  The  above  extract  from  Jackson  is  of  the  greater  force  because  elsewhere, 
in  divers  places,  he  speaks  strongly  of"  the  remissioji  of  original  sin  in  Baptism," 
as  for  instance — "  Only  original  sin  is  remitted  in  such  as  are  not  guilty  of  actual 
sins,  as  in  Infants,"  vol.  iii.  p.  297.  Evidently  then  he  distinguishes  between 
the  remission  and  the  extinction  of  Original  Sin  in  Baptism.  The  latter  is  the 
doctrine  of  Oxfordism  and  Popery,  not  only  because  their  Justifying  righteous- 
ness is  infused  grace  and  to  be  justifying  it  must  leave  no  original  sin  remain- 
ing, but  because  such  are  the  express  declarations  of  both.  "'J'he  Council  of 
Trent  to  obviate  the  possibility  of  doubt  on  this  subject  has  added  its  own  dis- 
tinct declaration,  by  pronouncing  anathema  against  those  who  should  presume 
to  think  otherwise,  or  should  dare  to  assert  that  "although  sin  is  forgiven  in 
baptism,  it  is  not  entirely  removed  or  totally  eradicated,  but  is  cut  away  in  such 
a  manner  as  to  leave  its  roots  still  firmly  fixed  in  the  soul." — Catechism  of 
Council  of  Trent,  p.  168. 
47 


370 

Sin  is  thus  remiited  on  account  of  the  imputed 
righteousness  of  the  Second  Adam,"  without  their 
personal  faith,  just  as,  they  have  been  brought  with- 
out any  act  of  theirs,  under  the  curse  of  the  sin  of 
the  first  Adam.  When  Baptized  Infants  come  to  be 
capable  of  what  is  called  actual  sin,  that  is,  sin  after 
Baptism,  then  they  must  personally  "  repent  and  be- 
lieve on  the  Lord  Jesus  Christ,"  or  else  they  can- 
not be  saved :  but  their  baptism,  as  to  all  participa- 
tion in  God's  mercy,  will  be  then  as  if  they  had  not 
been  baptized;  just  as  the  circumcision  of  the  Jew 
was  made,  by  unbelief,  uncircumcisionP 

Secondly :  Is  it  the  doctrine  of  the  Anglican  Church 
that  Justification  is  so  inseparably  connected  with 
Baptism,  as  its  onli/  Instrumental  Cause  that  without 
it  no  sinner  can  be  justified  before  God  ?  This  we 
unequivocally  deny — and  on  the  contrary,  we  posi- 
tively assert  that  it  is  the  doctrine  of  our  Church 
that  whenever  a  sinner  repents  and  believes  in  the  Lord 
Jesus  Christ,  before  Baptism,  at  Baptism  or  after 
Baptism,  his  sins  are  freely  and  perfectly  remitted, 
he  is  freely  and  completely  justified,  through  "the 
righteousness  which  is  of  God  by  faith." 

The  proof  of  this  is  already  half  made  by  the  shew- 
ing in  our  preceding  pages  of  the  entire  opposition 
between  the  nature  of  Justification  as  held  by  the 
advocates  of  its  inseparable  dependance  on  Baptism, 
and  its  nature  as  held  by  our  Church. 

Since  Justification,  in  the  judgment  of  our  Church, 
consists  in  the  imputation,  or  accounting,  of  the 
Righteousness  of  Christ's  Mediatorial  obedience  and 
death,  to  us,  as  if  we  had  perfectly  fulfilled  the  law; 
while  in  the  scheme  of  Oxford  Divinity,  it  consists 


371 


in  no  such  thing,  but  in  an  infused  and  inherent 
rio-hteousness.  a  moral  righteousness  abidins^  in  us ; 
it  is  not  probable  that  the  dependance  of  the  former 
upon  an  external  ordinance,  will  be  found  to  resem- 
ble that  of  the  latter. 

With  these  preliminary  observations  we  proceed 
to  a  more  direct  enquiry. 

If  our  Church  does  teach  that  Baptism  is  the  only 
Instrument  of  Justification,  so  that  no  one,  however 
penitent,  and  believing  before  baptism,  can  be  Justi- 
fied ;  then  surely  we  must  expect  to  find  so  grave  a 
doctrine  asserted  in  those  documents,  in  which  our 
Church  professes  to  state  her  doctrine  on  the  subject, 
as  well  of  Baptism,  as  of  Justification.  The  Church 
of  Rome  does  not  publish  her  canon  of  Justification 
without  declaring  expressly  that  Baptism  is  the  onhj 
Instrumental  Cause  of  Justification  and  that  ni'thout  it, 
Justif  cation  can  come  to  no  one.  Dr.  Pusey  does  not 
draw  up  either  his  Article  of  Justification  or  of  Bap- 
tism without  being  equally  express.  Mr.  Newman 
can  hardly  write  a  page  on  Justification  without  in- 
dicating his  views  as  to  its  connection  with  Baptism. 
Now  if  our  Church  is  of  the  same  mind,  surely  her 
Articles  on  the  subject  of  the  Sacraments  in  General, 
on  Baptism  in  Particular ;  her  three  Articles  relat- 
ing to  Justification,  or  else  the  Catechism,  in  those 
parts  relating  to  the  Sacraments,  might  be  expected 
to  say  something  on  this  subject.  In  examining  in- 
to the  doctrine  of  the  Church  in  this  matter,  it  is  the 
same  question  essentiallij  whether  a  person,  possessed 
of  true  repentance  and  a  lively  faith,  may  be  consi- 
dered as  spiritually  horn  of  God  or  renenerate,  thoug;h 
not  yet  baptized :  for  though  Justification  as  in 
scripture-divinity  is  altogether  a  different  matter  from 


372 


Regeneration,  yet  as  the  two  are  inseparably  con- 
nected, or  that  none  are  justified  who  are  not  also 
Regenerate,  and  none  are  Regenerate,  who  are  not 
also  Justified,  whichever  way  the  question  may  be 
determined  with  regard  to  the  one,  it  must  be  also 
as  to  the  other. 

Then  do  the  standard  documents  of  the  Anglican 
Church  pronounce  that  no  man,  however  penitent 
and  believing,  is  either  born  of  the  Spirit,  or  Justi- 
fied, except  he  have  been  baptized  ? 

The  Article  of  Justification  which  is  applied  by 
Oxford  divines,  exclusively  to  the  case  in  hand,  viz : 
the  justification  of  the  unbaptized  contains  not  a 
word  about  Baptism.  The  only  instrument  it  knows 
is  faith.  But  that  Article  refers  for  a  larger  expli- 
cation of  its  doctrine  to  the  Homily  of  Salvation. 
That  Homily  enters  at  much  length,  into  the  subject 
of  Justification  by  faith,  and  yet  only  in  the  two  ex- 
tracts given  at  the  commencement  of  this  chapter  is 
one  word  said  about  Baptism  ;  and  in  those  passages, 
not  a  word  about  the  penitent  and  believing,  but  un- 
baptized adult,  but  only  about  children  incapable 
of  believing,  and  persons  repenting  after  Baptism. 
Now  this  looks  very  strange  indeed,  if  there  be  no 
Justification  without  Baptism. 

But  w^hat  says  the  Article  expressly  given  to  Bap- 
tism ? 

Baptism  is — a  sign  of  Regeneration  or  New-Birth,  whereby,  as 
by  an  instrument,  they  that  receive  baptism  rightly  are  grafted  into 
the  Church  :  the  promises  of  forgiveness  of  sins  and  of  adoption  to 
be  the  sons  of  God  by  the  Holy  Ghost  are  risi^/^  signed  and  sealed^ 
faith  is  confirmed  and  grace  increased  by  virtue  of  prayer  to  God."* 


'  Article  xxvii. 


373 


These  words  evidently  refer  to  the  baptism  of 
adults,  or  persons  havhig  what,  the  Catechism  says, 
is  necessary  to  a  right  receiving  of  Baptism,  viz  : 
repentance  and  faith.  This  Article  says  that  Bap- 
tism is  the  sigji  of  regeneration.  It  goes  no  further. 
But  the  sigii  and  the  thing  signified  are  not  the  same, 
or  inseparable.  The  sign  may  be  alone  as  in  Simon 
Magus ;  it  may  follow  after,  as  in  the  baptism  of  Cor- 
nelius and  the  Eunuch.    To  say  that  in  Baptism 

the  prwnises  of  forgiveness  are  msihhj  signed  and 
sealed,''  is  just  as  consistent  with  the  idea  that  for- 
giveness has  already  taken  place,  as  the  signing, 
sealino^  and  deliverinor  of  a  deed  of  convevance  of  an 
estate  is  consistent  with  the  estate  having  been  for 
some  time  already  in  the  actual  possession  and  en- 
joyment of  him,  to  whom  the  deed  is  made. 

The  same  will  hold  with  regard  to  the  definition 
of  a  Sacrament  in  the  Catechism,  that  it  is  "an  out- 
ward and  visible  sign  of  an  inward  and  spiritual 
grace  given  to  us,  ordained  by  Christ  himself,  as  a 
means  whereby  we  receive  the  same,  and  a  pledge 
to  assure  us  thereof."  The  time  of  the  orivino-  of 
that  "spiritual  grace,"  which  is  said  to  bo  a  death 
unto  sin  and  a  new-lirth  unto  righteousness''  is  no 
more  restricted  to  the  time  of  the  sign,  than  the  time 
of  entering  on  the  use  of  an  estate  is  restricted  to  the 
time  of  signing  and  sealing  the  title  deed.  But  Bap- 
tism is  not  only  a  sign  and  seal  and  pledge,  but  an 
effective  sign.  It  is  a  mean  whereby  we  receive," 
the  grace  signified,  as  well  as  a  pitdge  to  assure  us 
thereof."  In  the  ca.se  of  Infants  we  doubt  not  it  is  a 
means  whereby  they  may,  and  do  often  receive  the 
beginnings,  of  that  grace ;  though  even  upon  infants 


374 


"unbaptized,  the  prayer  of  faith  may,  and  we  doubt  not 
does,  sometimes  bring-  down  the  grace  of  the  Holy 
Ghost.  But  we  are  now  on  the  case  of  adults.  The 
language  of  the  Catechism  by  no  means  teaches  that 
the  grace  signified  is  first  received  by  them  when  they 
receive  its  visible  sign.  The  very  nature  of  the  Re- 
pentance with  which  they  are  supposed  to  come,  is 
that  of  ''a  death  unto  sin  and  a  new  hnth  unto  righte- 
ousness.'"  The  grace  signified  is  therefore  begun  be- 
fore. Baptism  is  the  means  of  receiving  more  of  it, 
and  therefore  the  equivalent  expression  in  the  27th 
Article  is  that  in  Baptism,  ''faith  is  confirmed  and 
grace  increased  hj  virtue  of  prayer  unto  God^^^  both 
being  already  begun. 

Now  as  we  have  said  that  neither  in  the  Articles, 
Catechism,  nor  Homilies,  is  it  ever  hinted  that  Justi- 
fication is  limited  to  Baptism,  as  its  only  instrument; 
we  add  the  assertion  that,  in  the  Articles  and  Homi- 
lies, it  expressly  is  limited  to  faith,  as  its  only  instru- 
ment of  reception. 

For  the  illustration  and  support  of  this  position, 
the  reader  must  be  referred  to  the  evidence  of  faith 
being  made  the  ''sole  instrument,''^  "the  only  mean'''' 
required  '4n  behalf  of  man  for  his  Justification,"  as 
it  is  given  in  the  review  taken  of  the  Articles  and 
Homilies  in  the  9th  Chapter  of  this  work. 

We  cannot  consider  it  necessary  to  go  any  further 
in  vindicating  the  eminently  evangelical  doctrines  of 
those  standards  from  the  charge  of  teaching  that 
though  a  sinner  have  truly  repented,  and  is  humbly 
believing  in  Jesus,  and  so  Las  that  very  inward  and 
spiritual  grace  of  which  Baptism  is  the  sign,  yet,  if 
some  cause,  not  involving  a  sinful  disobedience,  or 


375 


neglect  on  his  part,  have  prevented  or  delayed  his 
baptism,  he  cannot  be  now  "justified  by  faith,"  and 
so  has  not  peace  with  God  Yet  this  is  the  doctrine 
of  Dr.  Pusey — and  this  is  the  doctrine  of  Rome.  If 
it  be  a  good  objection  to  the  Romish  doctrine  of  the 
necessity  of  the  Priest's  intention  to  the  validity  of 
the  Sacraments,  that  thus,  a  poor  penitent  soul  will 
be  dependant  for  his  dearest  privileges  upon  the  ca- 
price of  men  who  may  be  ungodly  and  caring  nothing 
for  his  soul,  why  is  it  not  just  as  much  against  this 
dependance  of  justification  upon  Baptism,  that  thus 
a  sinner  may  be  kept  out  of  the  peace  of  God,  and 
out  of  heaven,  by  the  indifference,  indolence  or  ab- 
sence of  a  INIinister  ? 

The  plain  testimony  of  the  word  of  God  is  that 
Whosoever  believeth  that  Jesus  is  the  Christ  is 
born  of  God.''  Every  one  that  loveth,  is  born  of 
God."  "He  that  believeth  in  the  Son  hath  everlast- 
ing life."  Then  as  true  repentance  and  faith  are  re- 
quired for  adult  Baptism,  and  where  there  is  true 
repentance  towards  God,  there  must  be  true  love,  it 
follows  that  the  Church  considers  that  whosoever  is 
truly  prepared  for  adult-baptism  is  already  horn  of 
God — and  already  justified. 

One  w^ould  suppose  that  such  truths  could  not  be 
hid  from  any  common  reader  of  the  Scriptures.  And 
here  we  should  drop  the  subject,  but  that  passages 
occur  in  the  Scriptures,  in  the  service  for  Adult 
Baptism,  in  the  Homilies,  and  in  standard  writers  of 
our  Church  on  the  subject  of  Baptism,  which  many 
minds,  of  correct  views,  find  great  difficulty  in  re- 
conciling with  the  doctrine  just  exhibited.  The 
passages  in  the  Scriptures  are  such  as  that  of  Ana- 


376 

nias  to  Saul,  Arise  and  be  baptized  and  wash  away 
thy  sins;''  that  concerning  John's  baptism,  which  is 
called  the  "Baptism  of  repentance  for  the  Remission 
of  sins-''  that  also  of  St.  Peter  on  the  day  of  Pente- 
cost— "Repent  and  be  baptized,  &cc.,fo7^  the  remis- 
sion of  sins.''  The  passages  in  the  office  for  adult 
baptism  are  similar.  According  to  such  passages, 
Baptism  is  called,  in  the  Homilies,  "the  fountain  of 
our  Kegeneration" — "the  Sacrament  of  our  Regenera- 
tion, or  Nero  Birth''  We  are  said  to  be  "rvashed  in 
our  Baptism  from  the  flthiness  of  sin."  We  say  in 
the  Nicene  Creed,  that  we  "believe  in  oiie  baptism 
for  the  remission  of  sins,"  Such  language  is  followed 
out  with  great  streng-th  of  language  in  the  ancient 
Fathers,  and  is  found,  every  w-here,  in  the  writings 
of  the  old  English  Divines,  as  well  as  in  those  of 
Continental  Reformers.  A  few  examples  will  suf- 
fice for  the  whole. 

Cranmer  says  :  "The  second  birth  is  by  the  water 
of  Baptism,  w^hich  Paul  calleth  the  bath  of  regenera- 
tion, because  our  sins  be  forgiven  us  in  Baptism,  and 
the  Holy  Ghost  is  poured  into  us  as  into  God's  be- 
loved children,  so  that  by  the  power  and  working  of 
the  Holy  Ghost,  7ve  be  born  again  spiritually  and 
made  nerv  creatures. 

Again:  "By  Baptism,  the  whole  righteousness  of 
Christ  is  given  unto  us  that  we  may  claim  the  same 
as  our  own."^ 

Bradford  says,  that  "  in  Baptism  is  given  to  us  the 
Holy  Ghost  and  pardon  of  our  sins — the  old  man  is 
put  of  the  7ierv  man  is  put  on."^ 


'  Sermon  on  Baptism. 


2  Sermon  on  the  Lord's  Supper. 


377 


Such  language  is  common  in  Hooker.  This  is 
the  necessity  of  Sacraments.  That  saving  grace 
which  Christ  originally  is,  or  hath  for  the  general 
good  of  His  whole  Church,  by  Sacraments  he  sever- 
ally deriveth  into  every  member  thereof,"  Again, 
"  we  receive  Christ  Jesus  in  Baptism  once,  as  the  first 
beginner ;  in  the  Eucharist  often,  as  being  by  con- 
tinual degrees,  the  finisher  of  our  life."  Again, 

Baptism  is  a  Sacrament  which  God  hath  instituted 
in  his  Church,  to  the  end  that  they  which  receive 
the  same  might  thereby  be  incorporated  into  Christ, 
and  so  through  his  most  precious  merit  obtain,  as 
well  that  saving  grace  of  imputation  which  taketh 
away  all  former  guiltiness,  as  also  that  infused  virtue 
of  the  Holy  Ghost  which  giveth  to  the  powers  of  the 
soul  their  first  disposition  towards  newness  of  life."^ 

Such  are  faithful  examples  of  the  strongest  lan- 
guage to  be  found  on  the  subject — and  without  doubt, 
it  need  not  be  any  stronger,  to  meet  the  meaning  of 
Scripture. 

But  is  it  not  manifest  that  the  writers  of  such  pas- 
sages did  believe  that  no  man  is  born  again,  made  a 
new  creature,  regenerated  by  the^  Holy  Ghost,  justi- 
fied by  the  imputation  of  Christ's  righteousness  till 
he  is  baptized  ?  Let  us  examine  the  case. 

A  few  considerations  will  show  that  these  expres- 
sions cannot  be  thus  literally  and  strictly  interpreted. 
Let  it  be  premised  that  it  is  maintained  by  our  Ox- 
ford Divines  and  we  have  no  disposition  to  dispute 
it,  that,  in  the  times  of  the  Reformers  and  of  those 
men  of  strength  who  immediately  succeeded  them. 


'  Hooker's  Eccl.  Pol.  I.  v.  §  57  and  60. 

48 


378 


there  was  no  difference  of  opinion  on  this  subject. 
Whatever  therefore  may  appear  in  one,  will  be  a  va- 
lid explanation  of  the  general  doctrine  of  the  rest. 

Now  if  Cranmer  did  hold  literally  and  strictly  that 
Justification  cannot  take  place  until  we  are  baptized, 
how  happens  it  that  he  writes  the  Homily  on  Justi- 
fication which  is  referred  to  in  the  Article  of  Justifi- 
cation, for  a  full  explication  of  the  doctrine  of  Justi- 
fication— a  Homily  in  three  parts,  in  which  the  con- 
nection of  repentance  and  faith  with  Justification  is 
fully  treated,  and  the  latter  is  represented  as  the  only 
means,  the  former  as  absolutely  necessary  to  Salva- 
tion ;  and  yet  Baptism,  as  having  any  such  relation, 
is  not  hinted  at,  and  the  only  two  places  in  which 
Baptism  is  mentioned  at  all,  are  those  already  quo- 
ted, where  the  remission  of  Original  Sin,  in  the 
baptism  of  infants  and  of  post-baptismal  sin,  in  adults, 
is  spoken  of  in  a  few  lines. 

Again,  the  same  Cranmer  writes,  or  aids  in  writing, 
another  Homily  on  Faith,  which  speaks  largely  of 
its  nature  and  saving  influence,  and  notes  that  who- 
soever helieveth  is  born  of  God,  but  there  is  not  a 
word  in  all  the  Homily,  about  Baptism.  Can  it  be 
supposed  that  such  an  omission  would  have  ap- 
peared, had  Cranmer  believed  that  Faith  is  always 

secondary  and  subordinate  to  Baptism,"  dead  with- 
out it,  and  repentance  so  defective  that  a  sinner  repent- 
ing and  believing  cannot  be  justified  or  at  peace 
with  God  till  he  has  been  baptized?  Could  the 
Church  of  Rome  have  made  such  an  omission  ?  Could 
Dr.  Pusey  or  Mr.  Newman  have  kept  Baptism  so 
in  the  shade?  This  certainly  is  unaccountable  on 
such  a  supposition. 


379 


Again,  Bishop  Hooper  (Martyr)  writes  a  Sermon 
on  Justification,  in  which  he  speaks  freely  and  very 
strongly  of  faith  as  the  only  mean  of  Justification,  as 
in  the  following  passage:  "Though  sole  faith  ex- 
cludes not  other  virtues  from  being  present  at  the 
conversion  of  every  sinner,  yet  sole  and  only  faith  ex- 
cludes the  merits  of  other  virtues  and  obtains  solely 
remission  of  sin  for  Christ's  sake  herself  alone.'"  The 
good  Bishop  in  this  Sermon  speaks  of  the  Lord's 
Supper,  and  gets  so  near  to  Baptism  as  to  speak  of 
Nicodemus,  whose  case  is  so  associated  with  Baptis- 
mal Regeneration,  and  yet  not  a  word  about  Baptism 
occurs  in  the  whole  Sermon. 

Again,  Hooker  has  a  long  and  learned  Discourse 
of  Justification  in  which  he  is  exceeding  clear  and 
point  edas  to  the  office  of  faith,  as  well  as  divers  other 
cognate  subjects.  He  says  Faith  is  the  onlij  hand 
which putteth  on  Christ  unto  Justification,'"  and  by 
faith  we  are  incorporated  into  Christ. In  one  place 
he  expressly  sets  himself  to  show  what  is  required 
in  us,  as  absolutely  necessary  to  salvation  ;  he  goes 
over  divers  particulars,  yet  in  all  the  discourse,  not  a 
word  is  said  of  Baptism,  except  to  mention,  as  charac- 
teristic of  Popery,  precisely  what  our  Oxford  divines 
so  earnestly  contend  for,  viz:  "that  Romanists  hold 
that  the  infusion  of  grace  is  applied  to  infants 
through  Baptism,  without  either  faith  or  works,"  and 
that  "in  them  really  {substantially,)  it  taketh  away 
Original  Sin  and  the  punishment  due  unto  it — that 
"it  is  applied  to  infidels  and  wicked  men  in  the  first 
Justification,  through  Baptism  without  works,  yet 
not  without  Faith,  and  it  taketh  away  both  sins  Ac- 
tual and  Original  together." — Section  v. 


380 

Now  certainly  such  omissions  of  Baptism  in  such 
discourses  are  very  singular,  if  the  authors  held  the 
doctrine  which  makes  Mr.  Newman  and  Dr.  Pusey 
so  earnest  and  reiterated  and  emphatic  for  Baptism, 
whenever  they  speak  of  Justification  or  Faith. 

Precisely  the  same  might  be  said  of  many  other 
standard  authors.  For  example,  Bishop  Andrews, 
who  writes  a  masterly  discourse  on  Justification — 
full  of  imputed  rightemsness  and  faith,  but  not  a 
word  of  Baptism.  But  the  case  of  Bishop  Bever- 
idge  is  peculiarly  strong.  No  writer  employs  the 
language  which  we  have  quoted  from  Cranmer^ 
Bradford  and  Hooker,  concerning  Baptism  with  more 
fulness  and  force  than  Beveridge.^  At  first  reading 
one  would  suppose  that  without  Baptism  there  could 
not  possibly  be  either  a  new  creature,  the  pardon  of 
sin,  or  a  hope  of  salvation.  But  the  same  admirable 
divine  has  a  series  of  sermons  on  Faith  and  Repent- 
ance, nine  in  all,  in  one  of  which  he  treats  of  Faith 
as  Furifying  the  heart ;  in  another,  as  Overcoming 
the  World;  in  another,  as  the  Only  Title  to  Sonship 
in  Christ;  in  a  fourth,  on  the  Profession  of  such 
Faith,  which  brings  one  Sacrament,  the  Lord's  Sup- 
per, unto  prominent  view ;  in  a  fifth,  on  the  same  : 
in  a  sixth,  on  Repentance  ;  in  a  seventh,  on  Repen- 
tance as  a  certain  and  the  only  method  of  obtaining 
Pardon;  in  an  eighth,  on  Repentance;  in  the  last,  on 
"  Reperttance  and  Faith,  the  two  great  branches  of  the 
Evangelical  Covenanf^ — and  yet  in  no  part  of  these 
discourses  is  the  subject  of  Baptism  even  mentioned 
except,  once  or  twice,  in  the  most  incidental  manner. 


*  Sec  Sermon,  No.  35. 


3S1 


But  the  case  is  stronger  still  in  regard  to  two  other 
discourses,  expressly  on  the  way  of  salvation,  and  enti- 
tled -'Salvation  ivholhj  oiving  to  Faith  in  Christ'' 
The  text  is  the  answer  to  the  Philippian  Jailer,  ''Be- 
lieve in  the  Lard  Jesus  Christ,''  &c.^  Now  here  was  a 
fine  opportunity  to  show  the  dependence  of  faith  on 
Baptism  and  its  entire  subordination,  for  Regenera- 
tion and  Salvation — because  it  immediately  follows 
that  the  Jailor  ''was  baptized,  he  and  all  his,  straight- 
ivayT  How  could  Mr.  Newman  have  handled  the 
faith  of  the  Jailor,  without  his  baptism ;  the  ivord  of 
faith  from  St.  Paul,  without  the  Sacrament  of  faith 
which  he  administered  ?  But  Bishop  Beveridge 
while  he  is  full  and  glorious  on  the  former,  does  not 
so  much  as  mention  the  latter,  except  just  to  say  that 
doubtless  the  Jailor  received  effectually  the  preach- 
ing of  the  Apostles,  because  ''it  is  expressly  asserted 
that  he  and  all  his  were  presently  baptized  and  that 

he  believed  in  the  Lord  with  all  his  house."  Such  is 
the  only  mention  of  Baptism — all  the  rest  is  of  faiths 


1  Such  passages  as  the  following  occur  continually  in  these  Sermons,  "It 
is  to  faith  and  faith  only,  under  God,  that  all  things  relating  to  our  future  state 
are  ascribed  all  the  Bible  over,  not  only  our  Pardon,  Justification,  Reconcilia- 
tion," &c.  "  By  the  same  faith  whereby  we  are  accounted  righteous  before 
God,  through  the  Merits  of  his  Son,  by  the  same  we  are  made  sincerely  righte- 
ous in  ourselves,  through  the  power  of  His  Holy  Spirit."  "  It  is  by  Faith  that 
we  are  engrafted  into  Christ  and  made  members  of  his  body,  and  so  partake  of 
that  Holy  Spirit  who  proceeds  from  him." 

2  The  contrast  between  this  entire  passing  over  of  the  baptism  of  the  Jailor, 
on  th«  part  of  Beveridge,  and  the  prominence  assigned  to  it  by  Dr.  Pusey,  is 
very  striking.  Bishop  Beveridge  dwells  exclusively  upon  the  required  faith. 
Dr.  Pusey  sees  nothing  scarcely  in  that  faith  but  baptism,  as  necessary  to  the 
Tery  life  of  faith.  Thus  says  the  latter:  "  Paul  says,  *  believe  on  the  Lord 
Je»U8  Christ,*  &c.,  but  a  part  of  that  belief  was  his  Baptism,  -without  -which 
his  belief  had  beex  dead." — Tract,  No.  67.  Am.  Ed.,  p.  173.  Now  if  Bever- 
idge had  believed,  with  Dr.  Pusey,  as  is  contended,  that  the  Jailor's  faith  was 


382 


Certainly  these  omissions  are  singular  on  the  sup- 
position that  those  venerable  authors  did  agree  with 
those  of  Oxford,  as  to  our  absolute  dependence  for 
being  born  again  of  the  Spirit  and  Justified,  upon 
the  receiving  of  Baptism. 

But  again,  if  the  strong  passages  which  we  have 
quoted  from  Cranmer,  Hooker,  &c.,  are  to  be  taken 
literally,  they  will  prove  far  too  much  for  any  theolo- 
gian. 

For  example.  Cranmer  says  that  in  Baptism  we 
are  ^'horn  spiritually,''^  and  made  '^nerv  creatures.''^ 
Bradford,  that  ''the  old  man  is  put  off,  and  the  nerv 
man  put  on;  yea,  Christ  is  "put  onP  Now  even  Mr. 
Newman  thinks  the  expression  '''put  on  ChrisV  too 
strong  to  be  accomplished  in  Baptism,  because  ''hap- 
ti zed  persons  do  not  so  put  on  Christ  as  to  he  forthrvith 
altogether  different  men  from  rvhat  they  rvere  before^ 

Again,  Hooker  says  that  in  Baptism  we  are  incor- 
porated into  Christ,  and  obtain  that  infused  divine  vir- 
tue of  the  Holy  Ghost  rvhich  giveth  to  the  porvers  of 
the  soul  the  first  dispositioji  towards  newness  of  life.^' 

Now  since  it  is  required  of  those  who  come  to 
adult  Baptism  that  they  have  repentance  and  faith 
before  they  come,  a  literal  interpretation  of  that  pas- 
sage would  teach  that  one  may  repent  and  believe 
not  only  without  being  a  new  creature,  without  put- 
ting off  the  old  man,  but  even  without  "-the  first  dis- 

dead  till  Baptism  gave  it  life,  how  was  it  possible  that  in  expounding  the  way 
of  salvation,  as  exhibited  in  the  case  of  the  Jailor,  he  should  have  expended  two 
whole  discourses,  the  one  on  Salvation  by  faith  in  general,  the  other  on  Justi- 
fying Faith  in  particular,  without  even  alluding  to  any  dependence  of  Faith  on 
Baptism  or  any  connection  between  them,  and  yet  Beveridge  is  one  of  the  exam- 
ples given  by  the  Oxford  Tracts  of  those  English  Divines  who  teach  their  doc- 
trine of  baptismal  justification. 


383 


position  towards  newness  of  liftP  But  Repentance 
and  Faith  are  -^that  death  to  sin  (says  Barrow)  and 
resurrection  to  righteousness,  that  being  buried  with 
Christ  and  rising  again  ^rith  him,  so  as  to  walk  in 
newness  of  Ufe,  kMcIi  the  baptismal  action  signifiesy^ 
Here  the  very  grace  of  Avhich  Baptism  is  the  visible 
sign,  and  which  is  said  to  be  conveyed  by  it  is  de- 
clared to  be  that  with  which  w-e  must  come  to  Bap- 
tism. Again  Beveridge,  in  illustrating  the  doctrine 
of  the  Church  on  Baptism,  quotes  Augustine  thus: 

In  the  baptismal  washing,  not  only  the  pardon 
of  such  sins  as  are  committed,  hut  of  such  as  shall  af- 
terwards be  committed,  is  granted  to  such  as  believe 
in  Christ."  Now  that  sins  are  forgiven  before  they 
are  committed  is,  a  doctrine  which  Oxford  Divines 
are  not  prepared  to  hold.  But  the  literal  interpreta- 
tion for  which  they  are  so  strenuous  will  make  this, 
as  well,  that  past  sins  are  strictly  remitted  in  Bap- 
tism, to  have  been  the  doctrine  of  Augustine.^ 

Again,  while  Hooker  says  that  "  by  Baptism  we 
are  incorporated  into  Christ,"  and  Cranmer,  that  in 
Baptism  "  the  whole  righteousness  of  Christ  is  given 
unto  us;"  both  these  divines  ascribe  in  other  places, 
this  same  blessing  only  to  Faith  as  the  sole  instru- 
ment of  Justification.  By  Faith  we  are  incorporated 
into  Christy  It  is  impossible  therefore  to  suppose 
that  in  the  judgment  of  these  waiters,  an  adult  in 
Baptism  receives  any  new  creation,  any  putting  off 
of  the  old  man,  any  death  to  sin  or  new  birth  to 
righteousness,  any  spiritual  union  to  Christ  which, 


'  Barrow  on  the  Doctrine  of  the  Sacraments.  ^  Beveridge  on  Articles — 

Art.  xxvii. 


384 


as  a  penitent  believer,  he  had  not  while  unbaptized. 

"We  therefore  find  in  their  writings  express  decla- 
rations that  all  the  inward  and  spiritual  blessings 
signified  and  conveyed  in  Baptism,  are  effectually 
enjoyed  before  Baptism  by  such  as  are  prepared  to 
be  baptized.    For  example.    Bishop  Hooper  says : 

*'  Such  as  be  baptized  must  remember  that  repentance  and  faith 
precede  this  extern^al  sign  ;  and  in  Christ  the  purgation  was  inwardly 
obtained  before  the  external  sign  was  given.  So  that  there  are  two 
kinds  of  Baptism,  and  both  necessary.  The  one  interior,  which  is 
the  cleansing  of  the  heart — the  operation  of  the  Holy  Ghost:  and 
this  baptism  is  in  man,  when  he  helieveth.^^^ 

And  thus  John  Frith,  (Martyr) : 

If  the  Spirit  of  God  and  his  grace  were  bound  unto  the  Sacra- 
ments, then  where  they  were  not  ministered  should  be  neither  Spirit 
nor  grace.  But  that  is  false;  for  Cornelius  and  all  his  household 
received  the  Holy  Ghost  before  they  were  baptized.  Here  we  may 
see  that  as  the  Spirit  lighteth  where  he  will,  neither  is  he  bound  to 
any  thing.  Yea,  and  this  example  doth  well  declare  that  the  sacra- 
ments are  given  to  be  an  outward  witness  to  all  the  congregation  of 
that  grace  which  is  given  privately  before  to  every  man."  "  We 
require  faith  of  a  man  before  he  be  baptized  (which  is  the  gift  of 
God  and  cometh  of  grace)  and  so  it  is  an  outward  sign  of  his  invisi- 
ble faith,  which  was  before  given  him  of  God.^^^ 

Hooker  says  :  We  grant  that  those  sentences  of 
Holy  Scripture  which  make  Sacraments  most  neces- 
sary to  eternal  life  are  no  prejudice  to  their  salvation 
that  want  them  by  some  inevitable  necessity  and 
without  any  fault  of  their  own."  Now  what  does 
this  amount  to  ?  A  sinner  repents  and  believes.  He 
desires  and  determines  to  obey  all  God's  will.  That 
will  includes  Baptism.  But  by  the  appointment  of 
his  Minister,  he  is  not  to  be  baptized  till  the  ensuing 


•  Fathers  of  the  English  Church,  v.  p.  169. 


2  lb.  1.  pp.  386,  408. 


385 


Sunday.  The  delay  is  no  fault  of  his  own.  Does 
this  delay  cause  him  to  be  unjustified  and  unregene- 
rate  when  both  are  necessary  to  peace  with  God? 
Would  such  delay  on  the  part  of  the  Church  be  ex- 
cusable in  such  a  case  ?  B-ut  take  a  stronger  case. 
The  ancient  Church  for  general  Baptism  made  choice 
of  two  chief  days  in  the  year — Easter  and  Pentecost. 
Suppose  a  heathen  soon  after  Pentecost  becoming 
truly  penitent  and  believing,  and  desiring  to  be  bap- 
tized, as  part  of  the  will  of  God.  His  baptism,  ac- 
cording to  the  custom,  would  be  deferred  till  the  fol- 
lowing Easter,  "without  any  fault  of  his  own."  It 
is  not  possible  that  the  Church  believed  that  all  that 
while  he  was  not  born  of  the  Spirit  nor  Justified,  and 
would  not  be  till  Easter.  How  could  he  have  been 
left  in  such  a  state,  not  at  peace  with.  God,  when  a 
Minister  could  at  once  have  baptized  him?  So  that 
Hooker's  admission  is  simply  this,  that  whenever  a 
person  professing  repentance  and  faith  remains  un- 
baptized,  out  of  a  spirit  of  disobedience  to  the  will  of 
God,  he  is  not  justified,  because  that  disobedience  is 
evidence  that  his  repentance  and  faith  are  not  genu- 
ine ;  and  when  his  want  of  baptism  does  not  argue 
any  thing  against  his  repentance  and  faith,  he  is  jus- 
tified— or,  in  his  own  words,  quoted  from  St.  Ber- 
nard, "his  religious  desire  of  baptism  standeth  him 
in  the  same  stead,"  which  amounts  to  the  admission 
that  however  Baptism  is  said  to  incorporate  us  into 
Christ ;  to  give  us  the  Holy  Spirit ;  to  make  us  new 
creatures  ;  gives  us  remission  of  sins,  &c.;  whoso- 
ever truhj  repents  and  believes  is  already  incorpora- 
ted into  Christ,  born  of  the  Spirit;  and  has  received 
remission  of  sins — so  that  Baptism  is  not  in  this 

49 


386 


sense  the  instrument  of  Regeneration  or  Justification. 
Hence  is  cited  Augustine  as  saying:  *'He  is  not  de- 
prived from  the  partaking  and  benefit  of  the  sacra- 
ment (though  he  be  not  baptized)  so  long  as  he  find- 
eth  in  himself  that  thing,  that  the  sacrament  signi- 
fieth."  And  Ambrose  also  writing  concerning  Val- 
entinianus,  a  Christian  Emperor,  who  died  un bap- 
tized, says :  "  I  have  heard  that  you  are  grieved  be- 
cause he  took  not  the  sacrament  of  Baptism.  Tell 
me  what  other  thing  is  there  in  us  but  our  will  and 
our  desire — He  which  was  endued  with  thy  Spirit,  0 
God,  how  might  it  he  that  he  should  he  void  of  thy 
grace!'' 

Bishop  Jewel  having  instanced  these  opinions  of 
Augustine  and  Ambrose,  and  having  mentioned  that 
Constantine,  the  first  Christian  Emperor,  was  not 
baptized  until  his  death ;  that  the  thief  on  the  cross 
was  received  into  Paradise  without  Baptism,  and 
that  Jeremiah  and  John  Baptist  were  sanctified  in 
their  mother's  womb,  proceeds  to  say:  '*By  these 
few  it  may  appear  that  the  Sacrament  maketh  not  a 
Christian,  but  is  a  seal  and  assurance  to  all  that  re- 
ceive it,  of  the  grace  of  God,  unless  they  make  them- 
selves unworthy  thereof.  The  Church  hath  always 
received  three  sorts  of  Baptism — the  baptism  of  the 
Spirit,  or  of  blood,  [martyrdom)  or  of  water,'''  Thus, 
according  to  Jewel,  the  Church  has  always  held  a 
baptism  of  the  Spirit  independently  of  the  outward 
sacrament  of  Baptism  by  water.  ^  Thus  therefore 
writes  Bishop  Hall: 

"  No  man  that  hath  faith  can  be  condemned ;  for  Christ  dwells  in 

'  Jewel  on  the  Sacraments— Fathers  of  the  English  Church,  vol.  vii.  pp.500,  501. 


387 


our  hearts  by  faith,  and  he  in  whom  Christ  dwells  cannot  be  repro- 
bate. Now  it  is  possible  that  a  man  may  have  a  saving  faith  before 
Baptism.  Abraham  first  believed  to  Justification,  then  after  received 
the  sign  of  circumcision  as  a  seal  of  the  righteousness  of  that  faith 
which  he  had  when  he  was  uncircumcised.  Neither  was  Abraham's 
case  singular:  he  was  the  father  of  all  them  also  which  believe,  not 
being  circumcised.  These  as  they  are  his  sons  in  faith,  so  in  righte- 
ousness, so  in  salvation.  Uncircumcision  cannot  hinder  where  faith 
admitteth.  Baptism  therefore  without  faith  cannot  save  a  man  ;  and 
by  faith  doth  save  him.  And  faith  without  Baptism  where  it  can- 
not be  had ;  not  where  it  may  be  had  and  is  contemned.  That 
Spirit  which  works  by  means,  will  not  be  tied  to  means. 

Regeneration  being  thus,  in  the  view  of  the  Church, 
and  her  standard  divines,  a  spiritual  and  inward  hirth, 
which  is  not  so  inseparable  from  Baptism  that  there 
may  not  be  this  new  birth  without  that  Sacrament, 
or  that  Sacrament,  without  this  new-birth ;  the 
Church,  in  directing  her  members  to  examine  them- 
selves as  to  their  having  this  grace,  does  not  say, 
^'look  to  your  Baptism,  take  that  for  evidence;'^  but 

here  is  now  that  glass  wherein  thou  may  est  dis- 
cern whether  thou  have  the  Holy  Ghost  within  thee. 
If  thou  see  that  thy  works  be  consonent  to  the  pre- 
script rule  of  God's  word  savouring  and  tasting  not 
of  the  flesh,  but  of  the  Spirit;  then  assure  thyself 
that  thou  art  endued  with  the  Holy  Ghost;  other- 
wise— thou  dost  nothing  else  but  deceive  thyself"^ 

But  this  is  precisely  what  our  Oxford  Divines 
most  pointedly  ridicule,  as  Ultra  Protestant  and 
vain.  Dr.  Pusey  says  that  ''Ultra  Protestants  have 
been  taught  that  Justification  is  not  the  gift  of  God 
through  his  Sacraments,  but  the  result  of  a  certain 
frame  of  mind,  of  a  going  forth  of  themselves  and 


'  Bishop  Wall's  Works,  vol.  vii.  pp.  236,  237.      ^fjonjiiy  Whitsunday. 


388 


resting  themselves  upon  their  Saviour;  this  is  the 
act  whereby  they  think  themselves  to  have  heen  justi- 
fiedcertainly — that  ac^  is  faith.  He  that  heliev- 
eth  on  Christ  is  Justified  from  all  his  sins''  saith  the 
Scripture.  "  If,  says  our  Church,  v^e  rise  by  repent- 
ance, and  with  a  full  purpose  of  amendment  of  life, 
do  flee  unto  the  mercy  of  God,  taking  sure  hold  there- 
upon^ through  faith  in  his  Son  Jesus  Christ  there  is 
an  assured  and  infallible  hope  of  pardon  and  remis- 
sion" of  our  sins.^  Faith  is  the  only  hand  that  tak- 
eth  hold  upon  Christ."^  ''In  this  doubtless  (says 
Beveridge)  consists  the  very  essence  of  Justifying 
faith,  even  in  trusting  and  relying  upon  Christ  alone 
for  pardon  and  salvation,  so  as  to  expect  it  from  him 
and  from  none  but  him."^ 

But  Dr.  Pusey  continues.  ''So,  as  another  would 
revert  to  his  Baptism  and  his  engraffing  into  Christ 
(at  his  baptism)  and  his  thus  being  in  Christ,  so  do 
they,  to  this  act  whereby  they  were  justified.'"*  Now 
here  is  indeed  precisely  the  difference.  The  Oxford 
system,  like  Romanism,  so  identifies  Baptism  with 
Regeneration  and  Justification,  that  we  are  not,  as 
the  Homily,  above  quoted,  directs,  to  look  to  our 
works,  our  walk,  our  conformity  with  God's  will  in 
His  word,  the  savour  and  taste  of  our  minds,  as  "the 
glass"  in  which  we  are  to  see  whether  we  be  in  faith, 
in  Christ,  &;C. ;  but  we  are  to  '^revert  to  our  baptism'' 
— that  is  the  glass  by  which  we  are  to  examine  our- 
selves whether  we  be  in  the  faith — that  is  the  evi- 
dence of  our  union  to  Christ  by  faith. 


•  Homily  of  Repentance,  P.  1.  2  Hooker.  ^  Beveridge's  Ser- 

rnonf?,  No.  89.  "  Letter  to  Bishop  of  Oxford,  pp.  47,  48. 


389 


Nothing  could  more  plainly  or  more  impressively 
display  the  ''great  gulf  fixed''  between  this  divinity 
and  that  of  the  Scriptures,  our  Church,  her  standard 
divines,  than  simply  this — that  v^hile  the  evidence  of 
Justification  which  the  Scriptures  refer  to  continual- 
ly, is  that  of  faith,  and  the  evidence  of  faith  is  the  walk, 
the  fruits,  the  being  led  by  the  Spirit,  the  purifying  of 
the  heart,  overcoming  the  world,  &c.,  and  never  our 
having  been  baptized ;  on  the  contrary,  the  evidence 
of  Oxfordism  like  that  of  Romanism,  is  simply  and 
exclusively  our  Baptism — our  ''being  thus  in  Christ." 

The  general  benefit  of  Baptism  is  thus  stated  by 
Archbishop  Usher  : 

It  is  "  the  same,  (he  says)  as  was  the  benefit  to  the  Jew,  outward 
(Rom.  ii.  28;  iii.  1,  2,)  "there  is  a  general  grace  of  baptism  which 
all  the  baptized  partake  of  as  a  common  favour,  and  that  is  their  ad- 
mission into  the  visible  body  of  the  Church,  their  matriculation  and 
outward  incorporating  into  the  number  of  the  worshippers  of  God  by 
external  communion.  And  so  as  circumcision  was  not  only  a  seal 
of  the  righteousness  which  is  by  faith,  but  as  an  overplus,  God  ap- 
pointeth  it  to  be  a  wall  of  separation  between  the  Jew  and  the  Gen- 
tile; so  is  baptism  a  badge  of  an  outward  member  of  the  Church,  a 
distinction  from  the  common  rout  of  heathen,  and  God  thereby  seals 
a  right  upon  the  party  baptized  to  his  ordinances.  Yet  this  is  but 
the  porch,  the  shell,  the  outside.  All  that  are  outwardly  received 
into  the  visible  Church  are  not  spiritually  ingrafted  into  the  mystical 
body  of  Christ.  Baptism  always  is  attended  upon  by  that  general 
grace,  but  not  always  by  that  special."  Again  :  "  Some  have  the 
outward  sign  and  not  the  inward  grace  ;  some  have  the  inward  grace 
and  not  the  outward  sign  ;  we  must  not  commit  idolatry  by  deifying 
the  outward  element." 

"  As  baptism,  administered  to  those  of  years,  is  not  effectual  un- 
less  they  believe;  so  we  can  make  no  comfortable  use  of  our  bap- 
tism  administered  in  our  infancy  until  we  believe.  The  righteous- 
ness of  Christ,  and  all  the  promises  of  grace,  were  in  my  baptism 
estated  upon  mc,  and  sealed  un  unto  me,  on  God's  part ;  but  then  I 


390 


come  to  have  the  profit  and  benefit  of  them,  when  I  come  to  under- 
stand what  grant,  God  in  baptism  hath  sealed  unto  me,  and  actually 
to  lay  hold  upon  it  by  faith." 

Those  excellent  Bishops,  Hopkins  and  Reynolds, 
would  furnish  us  with  abundant  matter  in  point,  but 
as  Bishop  Beveridge  is  especially  strong,  and  is  par- 
ticularly referred  to  in  the  Oxford  Tracts  for  the  use 
of  language  which  seems  to  indicate  the  inseparability 
of  Regeneration  and  Justification  from  Baptism,  we 
will  now  show  that  he  ascribes  all  saving  mercies  to 
faith  without  naming  Baptism, 

"  When  a  man  believes  in  Christ,  the  second 
Adam,  and  so  is  made  a  memher  of  his  hody^  he  is 
quickened  and  anointed  by  his  Spirit,  which  being 
the  principle  of  a  new  life  in  him,  he  thereby  becomes 
a  new  creature — another  kind  of  creature  from  what 
he  was  before,  and  therefore  is  properly  said  to  be 
born  again,  not  of  blood,  &c.,  but  of  God.  His  whole 
nature  is  changed.  He  hath  a  new  set  of  thoughts 
and  affections — and  whereas  other  men  are  born  only 
of  the  flesh,  such  a  one  is  Regenerate  or  Born  again 
of  the  Spirit.  Hence  all  such  are  called  the  Sons  of 
God,  and  are  really  so.^^  These  passages  are  from  a 
sermon  on  Regeneration^  in  which  Baptism  is  not 
mentioned.^  The  identity  of  the  language  with  that 
of  the  Homily  for  Whitsunday  is  striking — "-Such  is 
the  power  of  the  Holy  Ghost  to  regenerate  men  and  as 
it  were  to  bring  them  forth  anew,  so  that  they  shall  be 
nothing  like  the  men  they  were  before^ 

We  will  now  show  by  the  comparison  of  passa- 
ges of  the  same  authors,  how  impossible  it  is  to 


'  Beveridge's  Sermons,  No.  73. 


391 


save  them  from  self-contradiction,  if  the  Oxford  as- 
sertion, concerning  their  meaning,  be  true. 

Barrow  is  one  of  the  Catena  Patrum,  furnished  in 
the  Oxford  Tracts,  in  support  of  their  doctrine  of 
Baptismal  Regeneration  and  Justification.  Their  ci- 
tation quotes  him  as  saying : 

"  No  man  can  enter  into  the  kingdom  of  heaven  (that  is  become 
a  Christian  or  subject  of  God's  spiritual  kingdom)  without  being  re- 
generated by  water,  and  by  the  Spirit ;  that  is  without  Baptism,  and 
the  spiritual  grace  attending  it,  according  as  St.  Peter  doth  imply 
that  the  reception  of  the  Holy  Spirit  is  annexed  to  Holy  Baptism; 
*  Repent  and  be  baptized  every  one  of  you  for  the  remission  of  sins, 
and  ye  shall  receive  the  gift  of  the  Holy  Ghost.' 

"  That  the  justification  which  St.  Paul  discourseth  of,  seemeth  in 
his  meaning,  only  or  especially  to  be  that  act  of  grace  which  is  dis- 
pensed to  persons  at  their  baptism,  or  at  their  entrance  into  the 
Church;  when  they  openly  professing  their  faith,  and  undertaking 
the  practice  of  Christian  duty,  God  most  solemnly  and  formally  doth 
absolve  them  from  all  guilt,  and  accepteth  them  into  a  state  of  favour 
with  him  :  that  St.  Paul  only  or  chiefly  respecteth  this  act,  consider- 
ing his  design,  I  am  inclined  to  think,  and  many  passages  in  his 
discourse  seem  to  imply. 

Now,  from  all  this,  one  would  conclude  that  Bar- 
row had  no  idea  of  such  a  thins^  as  Justification  be- 
fore  Baptism.  But  how  will  this  agree  with  the  fol- 
lowing passage  of  the  same  sermon  of  Justification? 

In  Baptism  St.  Paul  saith  '*  we  die  to  sin  (by  resolution  and  en- 
gagement to  lead  a  new  life  in  obedience  to  God's  commandment,) 
and  so  dying  we  are  said  to  be  justified  from  sin  (that  which  other- 
wise is  expressed,  or  expounded,  by  being  freed  from  sin  :)  now  the 
freedom  from  sin  obtained  in  baptism  is  frequently  declared  to  be  the 
remission  of  sin  then  conferred,  and  solemnly  conferred  by  a  visible 
seal. 

"  Whereas  also  so  frequently  we  are  said  to  hejustijied  by  faith, 


'  Sermon  of  the  Holy  Ghost. 


-  Of  Justification  by  Faith. 


392 


and  according  to  the  general  tenor  of  Scripture,  the  immediate  con- 
sequent of  faith  is  baptism ;  therefore  dispensing  the  benefits  con- 
signed in  baptism  ;  is  coincident  with  justification ;  and  that  dispen- 
sation is  frequently  signified  to  be  the  cleansing  us  from  sin  by  the 
entire  remission  thereof." 

Now  here  is  justifying  faith,  going  hefore  Bap- 
tism ;  Baptism  made  its  consequent.  But  in  Oxford 
doctrine,  this  order  is  directly  reversed.  Justifying 
Faith  is  there  the  consequent  of  Baptism.  The  bene- 
fits of  Baptism  are  said  by  Barrow  to  be  "  co-incident 
with  Justification,"  not  productive  of  it.  They  come 
by  faith,  and  are  consigned^ ^  by  Baptism;  "con- 
ferred, and  solemnly  confirmed  by  it,  as  "a  visible 
seal,"  just  as  an  estate,  which  has  been  long  since 
purchased  and  possessed,  is  conferred  by  a  deed  of 
conveyance,  and  confirmed  by  a  visible  seal.  The 
death  unto  sin  which  Paul  speaks  of  as  being  con- 
tained in  baptism  is  here  said  to  be  by  resolution 
and  engagement  to  lead  a  new  life" — no  inward, 
spiritual"  change.  Dr.  Barrow  considers  that  as  hav- 
ing been  already  wrought  in  repentance  and  faith. 
He  expressly  says  that  repentance  and  faith  which 
are  required  as  preparatory  to  adult  baptism  are 
"that  death  to  sin  and  resurrection  to  Righteous- 
ness, that  being  buried  with  Christ  and  rising  again 
with  him,  so  as  to  walk  in  newness  of  life,  mhich  the 
baptismal  action  signifies^^ 

Here  then,  according  to  the  Oxford  view,  is  a  per- 
fect contradiction,  rendered  the  more  manifest  be- 
cause Barrow  considers  the  Oxford  doctrine  of  Jus- 
tification by  inherent  righteousness  to  be  an  interpre- 
tation of  St.  Paul,  "  arhitrarious  and  uncouth.^ ^ 


I  On  the  Doctrine  of  the  Sacraments. 


393 


We  will  show  the  same  thing  in  Hooker,  who  in 
the  Oxford  Catena  Patrum  is  cited  as  follows ; 

"  As  we  are  not  naturally  men  without  birth,  so  neither  are  we 
Christian  men,  in  the  eye  of  the  Church  of  God,  but  by  new  birth  ; 
nor  according  to  the  manifest  ordinary  course  of  divine  dispensation 
new  born,  but  by  that  baptism  which  both  declareth  and  maketh  us 
Christians.  In  which  respect,  we  justly  hold  it  to  be  the  door  of 
our  actual  entrance  to  God's  house,  the  first  apparent  beginning  of 
life,  a  seal  perhaps  to  the  grace  of  election  before  received ;  but  to 
our  sanctijication  here,  a  step  that  hath  not  any  before  it,"^ 

Now  this  will  seem  to  many  to  be  as  strong  as 
possible,  on  the  side  of  Oxford  doctrine.  But  a  little 
reflection  will  show  that  we  must  look  for  some  other 
sense  of  such  words  than  such  as  their  unconnected 
prima  facie  appearance  would  teach.  Hooker  speaks 
of  Baptism  being  the  door  of  our  entrance  to  God's 
house,"  the  first  apparent  beginning  of  life but 
elsewhere  he  ascribes  all  this  to  faith.  "By  faith 
(he  says)  we  are  incorporated  into  Christ."  And 
the  Homily  of  the  Passion  does  likewise.  Faith  is 
the  first  entry  into  the  Christian  life,'''  not  Baptism. 
''Faith  is  the  root  and  rvell-s'pring  of  all  nervness  of 
life,  as  rvell  in  praising  God  and  loving  our  neighbour,, 
as  purging  our  conscience  from  filthinessT 

Besides  Hooker,  as  we  have  seen  already^  is  ac- 
knowledged by  Oxford  Divines  to  have  believed  a 
doctrine  of  Justification  entirely  different  from  theirs 
of  infused  righteousness.  Moreover  to  take  him  liter- 
ally would  be  to  make  him  teach  that  when  one  re- 
pents and  believes,  before  Baptism,  he  has  not  "  the 
first  hegimiing  of  life,"  has  not  taken  a  single  step  to 
sanctification,  which  would  be  too  much  even  for 


50 


2Eccl.  Pol.  1.  V.  S  60. 


394 


Mr.  Newman  and  Dr.  Pusey,  for  they  consider  re- 
pentance and  faith  before  Baptism  to  be  a  step  at 
least  to  sanctification;  and  Bishop  Bethell  whom  they 
commend  as  a  standard  writer  on  this  subject,  ex- 
pressly says,  that  ^'  Renovation''  the  being  renewed 
by  the  Spirit,  which  we  suppose  is  ^*a  first  beginning 
of  life"  and  at  least  a  step  to  Sanctification,"  does 
precede  adult  Baptism.  Thus,  should  Hooker  be 
strictly  interpreted,  he  would  be  too  strong  even  for 
Oxford  divinity. 

Now,  let  us  compare  him  with  himself.  We  are 
indebted  to  Mr.  Keble's  late  Edition  of  Hooker  for 
the  following  expressions  of  that  standard  writer. 

*'  Let  it  therefore  suffice  us  to  receive  sacraments  as  sure  pledges  of 
God's  favour,  signs  infallible  that  the  hand  of  his  saving  nnercy  doth 
thereby  reach  forth  itself  towards  us,  sending  the  influences  of  his 
Spirit  into  men's  hearts,  which  maketh  them  like  to  a  rich  soil,  fer- 
tile with  all  kinds  of  heavenly  virtues,  purgelh,  justifielh,  restoreth, 
the  very  dead  unto  life ;  yea  raiseth  even  from  the  bottomless  pit  to 
place  in  thrones  of  everlasting  joy. 

"  They  pretend  that  to  Sacraments  we  ascribe  no  efficacy,  but 
make  them  bare  signs  of  instruction  or  admonition,  which  is  utterly 
false.  For  Sacraments  with  us  are  signs  effectual ;  they  are  the 
instruments  of  God,  whereby  to  bestow  grace,  howbeit  grace  not 
proceeding  from  the  visible  sign,  but  from  his  invisible  power. 
God  by  sacraments  giveth  grace  (saith  Bernard)  even  as  honours 
and  dignities  are  given — an  abbot  made  by  receiving  a  staff,  a  doc- 
tor by  a  book,  a  bishop  by  a  ring ;  because  he  that  giveth  these  pre- 
eminences declareth  by  such  signs  his  meaning,  nor  doth  the  receiver 
take  the  same  but  with  effect ;  for  which  cause  he  is  said  to  have 
the  one  by  the  other;  albeit  that  which  is  bestowed  proceedeth  wholly 
from  the  will  of  the  giver,  and  not  from  the  efficacy  of  the  sign."* 

This  quotation  from  St.  Bernard  is  directly  in  the 
face  of  the  Oxford  doctrine  of  the  efficacy  of  Bap- 


1  Keble's  Hooker,  vol.  ii.  p.  702. 


395 


tism.  The  idea  evidently  is  that  Baptism  is  said  to 
convey  the  benefit  of  the  Gospel  precisely  as  an  Ab- 
bot is  made  an  Abbot  by  receiving  a  staff.  And  no 
further  than  the  delivery  of  that  staff  implies  a  change 
in  the  personal  fitness  of  the  receiver  for  his  office, 
does  the  receiving  of  the  visible  sign  and  seal  of  Bap- 
tism imply  a  spiritual  change  in  the  personal  fitness, 
of  the  recipient,  for  the  privileges  of  the  Gospel. 

But  the  follov^ing  from  St.  Bernard  carries  out  his 
meaning  still  further : 

"  The  fashion  is  to  deliver  a  ring,  when  seizin  and  possession  of 
inheritance  is  given  ;  the  ring  is  a  sign  of  possession,  so  that  he 
which  takes  it  may  say,  «  The  ring  is  nothing,  I  care  not  for  it :  it  is 
the  inheritance  that  1  sought  for.'  In  like  manner  when  Christ  our 
Lord  drew  nigh  to  his  passion,  he  thought  good  to  give  seizin  and 
possession  of  his  grace  to  his  disciples,  and  that  they  might  receive 
his  invisible  grace  by  some  visible  sign :  for  this  end  all  sacraments 
are  instituted."^ 

Now  here  we  have  the  visible  mode  of  conveying 
an  estate,  produced  by  St.  Bernard,  as  an  illustra- 
tion of  the  conveyance  of  remission  of  sins  by  Bap- 
tism. Does  it  follow,  when  a  deed  is  signed,  sealed 
and  delivered,  that  the  person  to  whom  it  is  made, 
and  who,  in  law,  is  said  then  to  receive  the  convey- 
ance,'' has  not  before  that  been  in  the  real  and  equita- 
ble possession  and  enjoyment  of  the  estate  ?  Certain- 
ly not.  Then,  according  to  the  above  illustration  of 
St.  Bernard,  it  no  more  follows  that  because  remis- 
sion is  said  to  be  conveyed''  or  ^'consigned"  by 
the  sign  and  seal  of  Baptism,  that  the  person  re- 
ceiving it  has  not  been  before  that,  in  the  actual 
possession  before  God,  of  remission  of  sins.    Such  is 


'  Sermon  de  Can.  Doni. 


396 


the  sentiment  which  Hooker  makes  his  own  by  quo- 
tation, and  which  must  therefore  explain  the  pas- 
sages previously  adduced  from  him. 

But  it  will  illustrate  still  further  the  sentiments  of 
St.  Bernard,  thus  adopted  by  Hooker,  to  see  how 
they  were  understood  by  his  contemporaries. 
^  Aquinas,  in  the  13th  Century,  quotes  from  St. 
Bernard  the  same  passage  that  Hooker  does,  con- 
cerning the  book,  staff,  and  ring,  &c.,  and  criticises 
it  as  conveying  precisely  the  meaning  which  our 
Oxford  divines  so  earnestly  repudiate. 

"  Whoever  (he  says)  rightly  considers  that  passage  will  perceive 
that  the  mode  of  conveyance  expressed  does  not  transcend  that  of  a 
mere  sign.  For  the  book  is  nothing  but  a  certain  sign  by  which 
the  delivery  of  the  office  of  Canon  is  designated.  And  according  to 
this,  therefore,  the  Sacraments  of  the  new  law  would  be  nothing 
more  than  signs  of  grace, ''^^ 

Here  then  we  have  an  interpretation  of  St.  Ber- 
nard, and  of  the  expression  which  Hooker  adopts 
from  him,  made  by  the  great  Schoolman  of  the  13th 
Century  and  the  chief  founder  of  Romanism.  The 
fact  that  St.  Bernard,  who  is  styled  the  last  of  the 
Fathers,  and  head  of  the  Biblicists  in  his  day,  one 
of  the  last  champions  in  the  Romish  Church  for 
the  plain  letter  of  the  Bible,  against  the  Schoolmen, 
did  thus  express  himself,  and  was  thus  found  fault 
with  by  the  Angelic  Doctor  of  the  following  Cen- 
tury, is  a  strong  evidence  what  sort  of  doctrine  of  the 
Sacraments  was  then  expiring  with  all  biblical  the- 
ology, and  when  the  present  Romish  and  Oxford 
doctrine  came  in. 


>  Aquin.  Summa,  P.  iii.  Q.  62.  A.  1. 


397 


The  views  of  St.  Bernard  are  further  seen  by  such 
passages  as  the  following : 

"A  man  may  be  saved  hy  faith,  without  Baptism,  when  he 
has  a  pious  desire  of  receiving  it,  if  death  or  some  other  invincible 
cause  should  prevent."  For  this  he  quotes  Ambrose,  Augustine  and 
Cyprian.  He  reads  Mark  xvi.  16,  '  He  that  believeth  and  is  bap- 
tized  shall  be  saved,'  &c.,  as  teaching  that  "  sometimes  faith  alone 
suffices  for  salvation,  and  without  it  nothing  is  sufficient.  Although 
martyrdom,  as  it  is  conceded,  supplies  the  place  of  baptism,  it  is 
plainly  not  the  p«na  (the  suffering)  that  does  this,  but  faith  itself 
[sed  ipsa  fides).  And  the  effusion  of  one's  blood  for  Christ  is  a 
strong  proof  of  a  certain  great  faith,  nevertheless  not  a  proof  to  God, 
but  to  men."^ 

Thus  we  see  by  what  opinions  of  the  efficacy  of 
Baptism,  and  the  impossibility  of  Justification  and 
Regeneration  before  Baptism,  Hooker  would  have 
his  own  language  explained. 

We  will  now  illustrate  the  difficulty  in  which  the 
Oxford  doctrine  is  placed,  as  to  all  consistent  inter- 
pretation of  ancient  and  standard  divines,  by  passa- 
ges from  Bishop  Jewel. 

This  most  eminent  Bishop  and  Reformer  is  cited 
in  the  Catena  Patrum  of  the  Oxford  Tracts  as  sup- 
porting their  doctrine  of  Sacramental  Justification. 
The  following  is  a  part  of  their  extract: 

Such  a  change  is  made  in  the  sacrament  of  Baptism.  Through 
the  power  of  God's  working  the  water  is  turned  into  blood.  They 
that  be  washed  in  it  receive  the  remission  of  sins ;  their  robes  are 
made  clean  in  the  blood  of  the  Lamb.  The  water  itself  is  nothing; 
but  by  the  working  of  God's  Spirit,  the  death  and  merits  of  our 
Lord  and  Saviour  are  thereby  assured  unto  us."^ 

Jewel  quotes  and  professes  to  adopt  the  very 
strongest  language  of  the  Fathers  on  this  subject.^ 


*  Epistles  of  St.  Bernard. 
3  Reply  to  Harding,  p.  249. 


2  Treatise  on  the  Sacraments,  p.  266. 


398 


But  in  the  Second  Part  of  Froude's  Kemains, 
which  is  but  a  collection  of  what  may  be  called  Ox- 
ford Tracts,  we  have  the  following  passage  from 
Jewel,  given  in  evidence  that  he  did  not  hold  the 
right  (the  Oxford)  doctrine  of  the  Sacraments. 

"  Another  fantasie  Mr.  Harding  hath  found, '  that  the  Sacraments 
of  the  New  Law  work  the  th'^ng  itself  that  they  signify,  through  vir- 
tue (as  he  saith)  given  unto  them,  by  God's  ordinance,  to  special 
effects  of  grace.'  This,  as  I  said,  is  but  a  fantasie."  "  When  Au- 
gustine saiih  '  Our  Sacraments  give  salvation,'  his  meaning  is,  'Our 
Sacraments  teach  us  that  salvation  is  already  come  into  the  world.' 

Thus,  in  one  Oxford  publication,  we  have  Jewel 
cited  in  favour,  and  in  another  against,  their  doc- 
trine of  Sacramental  Justification. 

How  little  Augustine  aofreed  with  our  Oxford  di- 
vines  as  to  the  inseparability  of  Sanctification  from 
Baptism  may  be  judged  from  the  following  concern- 
ing the  Baptism  of  Cornelius. 

*'In  Cornelius  there  preceded  a  spiritual  sanctif  cation  in  the  gift 
of  the  Holy  Spirit,  and  this  Sacrament  of  regeneration  was  added  in 
the  washing  of  Baptism." 

Having  instanced  the  pardoned  thief  as  a  case 
wherein  Baptism  had  been  of  necessity  dispensed 
with,  he  adds : 

"  Much  more  in  Cornelius  and  his  friends  might  it  seem  superflu- 
ous, that  they  should  be  bedewed  with  water,  in  whom  the  gift  of 
the  Holy  Spirit  had  appeared  conspicuously,  by  that  sure  token,  viz. 
that  they  spake  with  tongues.  Yet  were  they  baptized,  and  in  this 
event,  we  have  apostolic  sanction  for  the  like.  So  surely  ought  no 
one  in  whatever  advanced  state  of  the  inner  man,  to  despise  the  Sa- 
crament which  is  administered  in  the  body,  by  the  work  of  the 
ministers,  but  God  thereby  spiritually  operates  the  consecration  of 
the  man." 


'  Fronde's  Remains,  Part  Second,  vol.  1,  p.  408. 


399 


How  is  it  possible  to  suppose  that  Augustine  writ- 
ing such  a  passage  could  have  believed  that  sanctifi- 
cation  and  its  commencement — Regeneration — did 
not,  could  not,  precede  Baptism!  AVhat  is  plainer 
than  that  he  contemplated  the  case  of  adults,  unhap" 
tized,  like  Cornelius  and  his  friends,  as,  nevertheless 
in  an  advanced  state  of  the  inner-man,  or  of  the  nerv- 
hirthl  What  is  plainer  than  that  he  considered  Bap- 
tism in  such  cases  as  in  the  body,  the  conferring  of 
an  external  sign  by  human  ministers,  of  an  inrvard 
grace  which  God  had  already  wrought  in  the  soul, 
by  the  Holy  Ghost?  Miserable  indeed  is  the  shift 
by  which  Dr.  Pusey  evades  the  whole  case  of  Cor- 
nelius, as  well  as  this  testimony  of  Augustine.  One 
while  he  positively  asserts  that  though  Cornelius 
had  ''faith,  love,  self-denial  and  power  to  pray,"  and 
though  the  Scriptures  tell  us  that  hefore  he  was  bap- 
tized he  received  both  the  preaching  of  Christ  from 
St.  Peter,  and  the  Holy  Ghost  from  God,  yet,  "he 
had  not  Christiaii  faith,  nor  love,  nor  self-denial^  nor 
prayer;  for  as  yet  he  knew  not  Christ'''  Afterwards, 
he  seems  to  be  sensible  of  the  absurdity  of  maintain- 
ing that  persons  to  whom  Peter  said,  "the  word 
which  God  sent  unto  the  children  of  Israel  preach- 
ing peace  by  Jesus  Christ— //za^  word  ye  knojvf'  that 
persons  to  whom  he  immediately  preached  that 
"through  his  name  whosoever  believeth  in  him  shall 
receive  remission  of  sins;"  that  such  persons  could 
not  have  Christian  faith  before  Baptism,  ''because 
they  hiew  not  Christ,''  that  persons  on  whom  imme- 
diately upon  their  receiving  the  words  of  Peter,  con- 
cerning Christ,  was  poured  out  the  Holy  Ghost, 
'\could  not  call  God  the  Father  because  they  knew  not 


400 


the  Son.^^  He  resorts  therefore  to  the  idea  of  the 
case  being  miraculous  and  solitary,  and  complains  of 
its  being  drawn  into  precedent,  and  thus  really  ac- 
knowledges what  before  he  had  endeavoured  to  es- 
cape, viz.,  that  in  the  Baptism  of  Cornelius  and  his 
household  and  friends,  that  is,  of  the  first  congrega- 
tion of  believing  Gentiles,  the  Grace  of  Regeneration 
preceded  the  Sacrament  of  Regeneration;  which  is 
virtually  an  acknowledgment  that  since  Augustine, 
in  the  passage  above  quoted,  alludes  to  the  case  of 
Cornelius  and  his  friends,  to  show  that  in  similar 
cases,  Baptism  ought  not  to  be  omitted,  it  was  Au- 
gustine's opinion  that  the  case  of  Cornelius  was  not 
alone,  but  was  repeated,  and  not  uncommonly  in 
subsequent  examples  of  believing,  but  unbaptized 
adults.^  What  that  Father  meant  then  by  Baptis- 
mal Regeneration  or  Justification  is  plain  by  a  com- 
parison of  the  above  quotation  with  the  following  on 
the  same  case  of  Cornelius  and  his  friends.    He  says  r 

"They  were  accounted,  by  St.  Peter,  as  of  those  '  animals  '  pointed 
out  in  that  vessel  (the  great  sheet)  whom  yet  God  had  now  cleansed 
(before  Baptism.)  They  were  then  to  be  '  slain  and  eaten,'  i.  e. 
their  forepassed  life,  wherein  they  had  not  known  Christ,  was  to  be 
destroyed,  and  they  were  to  pass  into  his  body,  as  it  were,  into  the 
neiv  life  of  the  society  of  the  Church."^ 

Now  did  "  their  forepast  life  remain  itndestrayed 
until  they  were  baptized,  when  it  is  said  they  were 
previously  cleansed,  previously  believers  in  Christ, 
and  partakers  of  the  Holy  Ghost  and  of  spiritual 
sanctification  ?"    What  then  could  its  destruction  in 


'  For  the  quotation  from  Augustine,  and  the  treatment  of  the  case  of  Corne- 
lius by  Dr.  Pusey,  see  his  Views  of  Holy  Baptism,  Am.  Ed.  p.  177 — 183. 
2  Augustine  quoted  in  Pusey 's  Views  of  Holy  Baptism,  Am.  Ed.  p.  183. 


401 


Baptism  have  been  but  the  adding  to  it  the  outward 
sign  and  seal,  the  sacramental  destruction  accompa- 
nied by  confirming  and  increasing  grace?  And 
what  could  the  passing  ''into  tlie  new  life  and  society 
of  the  Church,''  by  Baptism  have  meant  but  an  incor- 
poration into  the  visible  society  and  fellowship  of  the 
Church,  which  is  the  mystical  body  of  Christ  ? 

Precisely  according  to  Augustine,  is  Cyprian's 
proof  of  the  necessity  of  Baptism. 

We  find  (says  he)  in  the  Acts  of  the  Apostles  that  this  was 
carefully  observed  by  the  Apostles — so  that  when  in  the  house  of 
Cornelius  the  Centurion,  the  Holy  spirit  had  descended  on  the  Gen- 
tiles who  were  there,  kindled  with,  the  glow  of  faith,  and  believing 
in  the  Lord  with  the  whole  heart,  filled  with  whom  they  blessed 
God  with  divers  tongues,"  {and  yet  Dr.  Pusey  says  they  knew  not 
Christ,  and  h<id  no  Christian  faith  or  love,  because  unbapiized), 
"still  nevertheless  the  blessed  Apostle  Peter,  mindful  of  the  Divine 
and  evangelic  command,  commanded  those  same  persons  to  be  bap- 
tized, who  had  already  been  filled  with  the  Holy  Ghost,  that  nothing 
might  seem  to  be  omitted,  or  the  Apostolic  authorities  to  have  failed 
of  keeping  universally  the  law  of  the  divine  command  and  of  the 
Gospel."^ 

Now  since  the  baptism  of  Corneliu'S  is  thus  em- 
ployed by  the  Fathers  for  an  example  to  us,  it  can- 
not be  granted  that  it  was,  in  any  wise,  so  mir- 
aculous and  singular  as  to  furnish  no  example  on 
which  the  doctrine  of  the  receiving  of  the  Holy 
Ghost  before  Baptism,  by  those  who  come  to  it  with 
repentance  and  faith,  may  be  founded.  Certainly 
there  is  nothing  in  it  more  miraculous,  than  in  the 
conversion  and  baptizing  of  the  three  thousand  on 
the  day  of  Pentecost,  or  in  the  conversion  and  bap- 
tising of  Saul.    But  we  apprehend  it  would  be 

'  Cyprian  quoted  in  Pusey's  Views  of  Holy  Baptism,  Am.  Ed.  p.  182. 
51 


402 


thought  a  great  stretch  of  propriety  to  attempt  to 
evade  the  reasoning  of  Dr.  Pusey  from  the  language 
of  Scripture  in  connection  with  these  cases,  should 
we  say  they  were  too  miraculous  to  be  drawn  into 
precedent. 

But  the  language  and  doctrine  of  the  Fathers  is 
further  illustrated  in  the  case  of  Simon  Magus,  with 
which  Dr.  Pusey  is  exceedingly  perplexed,  not  know- 
ing whether  to  hold  that  Simon's  faith  was  true  and 
that  he  was  Regenerate  in  Baptism,  '^hut  in  time  of 
tem])tation  fell  away^^  or  that  he  was  hypocritical 
from  the  beginning,  and  received  Baptism,  without 
Regeneration  or  Justification.  If  the  latter  then  he 
says: 

"  It  gives  no  disclosure  as  to  God^s  general  dealings  in  his  Sa- 
craments.  It  is  an  excepted  case,  in  which  God  restrains  the  over- 
flowings of  his  goodness,  and  not  to  be  stretched  beyond  the  limits 
which  He  has  pointed  out.  It  is  no  proof  that  God  withholds  His 
grace  from  his  Sacraments,  except  when  man  disqualifies  himself 
from  receiving  it — closes  his  own  soul  against  God^s  gift.^^^ 

But  let  US  hear  some  of  the  language  of  the  Fa- 
thers concerning  the  case  of  Simon  Magus.  Augus- 
tine says,  "he  was  baptized  with  Christ's  Baptism" — 
that  ^^his  sins  were  forgiven  liim\^''  that  he  "  was  horn 
of  water  and  of  the  Spirit  that  he  "  received /Ae 
gift  of  the  Sacrament,  in  Baptism,'^  "  The  Church 
BORE  Simon  Magus  by  Baptism."  Jerome  speaks 
of  Simon  as  having  been  made  by  Baptism  one  of 
the  faithfuV^  Now  here  is  the  strongest  language 
of  Baptismal  Regeneration  and  Justification,  used  by 
Augustine  concerning  the  Baptism  of  Simon  the 
Magician,  who  was    yet  in  the  gall  of  hitter ness  and 


'  Pusey's  Views  of  Baptism,  Am.  Ed.  p.  187. 


2  lb.  p.  186. 


403 


the  bonds  of  iniqidty:'  Does  it  mean  that  he  was 
spiritually,  or  only  sacramentaJhj  born  and  forgiven  ? 
Did  the  Church  hear  him  in  a  spiritual  and  inward 
birth ;  or  only  in  the  signing-  and  sealing  of  the  out- 
ward ordinance?  Now  if  such  language  means  no 
more  than  the  latter,  in  the  case  of  Simon,  there  is 
no  reason  to  interpret  it  as  meaning  more  in  any 
other  case. 

Hear  then  St.  Jerome.  Speaking  of  those  who 
receive  not  Baptism  in  full  faith,  he  says : 

*'  Of  whom  it  must  be  said,  that  they  received  the  water,  hut  re- 
ceived not  the  Spirit^  as  that  Simon  iMagus  also,  who  was  baptized 
indeed  with  water  and  was  not  baptized  to  health." 

Hear  also  St.  Cyril : 

"Even  Simon  Magus  once  came  to  the  door  of  Baptism  ;  he  was 
baptized  hut  not  enlightened  ;  his  body  he  dipped  in  water,  but  ad- 
mitted not  the  Spirit  to  illuminate  his  heart — his  soul  was  not 
buried  with  Christ,  nor  icith  him  raised.^'' 

Hear  also  St.  Augustine.  Having  just  said  that 
the  Church  hore  him  or  brought  him  forth  in  Bap- 
tism, but  that  still  he  had  no  part  in  the  inheritance 
of  Christ,  he  asks : 

"  Was  Baptism,  was  the  Gospel,  were  the  Sacraments  wanting 
to  him?  But  since  love  was  icanting,  he  was  born  in  vain,  and  per- 
haps it  had  heen  hetterfor  him  not  to  have  heen  horn,'''' 

What  sort  of  new-birth  was  that  in  which  love  was 
not,  except  a  mere  sacramental  regeneration  ?  What 
can  be  more  manifest  than  that  the  Fathers  in  apply- 
ing the  strongest  language  of  Baptismal  Regenera- 
tion and  Justification  to  a  case  in  which  they  ac- 
knowledge there  was  neither  spiritttal  healthy  enlighten- 
ing,  illumination,  burial,  nor  resurrection  with  Christ, 
no  love,  a  birth  in  vain,  did  not  intend  to  be  under- 
stood as  so  applying  that  language  as  to  teach  that 
spiritual  regeneration  and  remission  of  sins  are  so 


404 


tied  to  Baptism  that  they  can  neither  precede  nor  fol- 
low it,  but  except  in  case  of  infidelity  or  hypocrisy 
are  always  conf^^rred  by  it. 

In  reading  tha  Fathers  on  Baptism  as  on  other 
subjects,  it  is  necessary  to  remember  what  even  Bel- 
larmine  says  of  them  that  ''they  speak  sometimes  in  a 
way  of  excess,  less  properly,  less  warily,  so  as  to  need 
benign  exposition  f  that  according  to  Bishop  Barrow 
they  had  their  kyperholical flashes'''  and  "did  some- 
times overlash  f  that,  according  to  Jackson,  they 
had  "  a  superfluity  of  rhetorical  inventions  or  ejacu- 
lations of  swelling  affections  in  panegyrical  passages." 

"  In  all  ages,  (said  Latimer)  the  devil  has  stirred  up  some  light 
heads  to  esteem  the  sacraments  but  lightly,  as  to  be  empty  and  base 
signs;  whom  the  Fathers  have  resisted  so  fiercely,  that  in  their  fer- 
vour they  seem  in  sound  of  words  to  run  too  far  the  other  way,  and 
to  give  too  much  to  the  sacraments,  wlien  they,  in  truth,  did  think 
more  measurably.  And  therefore  they  are  to  be  read  warily,  with 
sound  judgment."^ 

Now  it  is  reasonable  here  to  ask,  what  are  we  to 
understand  to  be  the  true  doctrine  of  the  Church  on 
this  subject.  We  answer  by  extracts  from  three 
writers,  whose  standing  cannot  be  questioned;  the 
first.  Bishop  Hooper,  one  of  the  Reformers  and  Mar- 
tyrs of  the  days  of  our  Articles,  when,  as  Dr.  Pusey 
says,  there  was  no  difference  of  opinion  on  this  sub- 
ject ;  the  second,  Bishop  Beveridge,  expressly  ex- 
pounding the  Article  on  Baptism ;  the  third,  Bishop 
Taylor. 

HOOPER — BISHOP,   REFORMER  AND  MARTYR. 

"  And  of  Baptism,  because  it  is  a  mark  of  our  Christian  Church, 
this  I  judge,  after  the  doctrine  of  St.  Paul,  that  it  is  a  seal  and  con- 
Jirmation  of  justice,  (Righteousness  or  Justification)  or  of  our  accep- 


'  Conference  with  Ridley. 


405 


tation  into  the  grace  of  God  for  Christ ;  for  his  innocency  and  jus- 
tice, by  faith,  is  ours,  and  our  sins  and  injustice,  by  his  obedience, 
are  his  ;  whereof  baptism  is  the  sign,  seal,  and  confirmation.  For, 
although  freely  by  the  grace  of  God  our  sins  are  forgiven,  yet  the 
same  is  declared  by  the  Gospel,  received  by  faith,  and  sealed  by  the 
sacraments,  which  are  the  seals  of  God's  promises,  as  it  is  to  be 
seen  by  the  faiih  of  faithful  Abraham."^ 

"  They  (the  Fathers)  thought  it  best  to  name  the  sacraments  by 
the  name  of  the  thing  that  was  represented  by  the  sacraments.  Yet  in 
many  places  of  their  writings,  they  so  interpret  themselves,  that  no 
man,  except  he  will  be  wilfully  blind,  can  say  but  they  understand 
the  sacrament  to  signify,  and  not  to  he  the  thing  signified  ;  to  con- 
firm, and  not  exhibit  grace ;  to  help,  and  not  to  give  faith  ;  to  seal, 
and  not  to  win  the  promise  of  God,  (Rom.  iv.)  ;  to  show  what  we 
are  before  the  use  of  them,  and  not  to  make  us  the  thing  we  declare 
to  be  after  them,  to  show  we  are  Christ's  ;  to  show  we  are  in  grace, 
and  not  by  them  to  be  received  into  grace  ;  to  show  we  are  saved, 
and  yet  not  to  be  saved  by  them  ;  to  show  we  are  regenerated,  and 
not  to  be  regenerated  by  them;  thus  the  old  doctors  meant. '"^ 

BEVERIDGE,  BISHOP. 
"  As  it  was  by  circumcision  that  the  Jews  were  distinguished 
from  all  other  people  in  the  world,  so  it  is  by  baptism  that  Chris- 
tians are  distinguished  both  from  Jews  and  others:  for  all  that  are 
baptized  are  Christians,  and  none  are  Christians  but  such  as  are 
baptized,  and  so  baptism  is  a  mark  of  difference,  whereby  Christians 
are  discerned  from  such  as  be  not  christened.  But  though  this  be 
one  effect  of  baptism,  it  is  not  all.  For  it  is  not  only  a  sign  of  our 
profession,  but  also  of  our  regeneration,  and  therefore  is  it  called 
*the  washing  of  regeneration,'  Tit.  iii.  5.  So  that  by  it  we  are 
grafted  into  the  Church,  and  made  members  of  that  body  whereof 
Christ  is  the  head ;  for  '  we  are  baptized  into  one  body,'  1  Cor.  xii. 
13.,  have  a  promise  from  God  of  the  forgiveness  of  those  sins  we 
have  committed  against  him.  And  therefore  Peter  said  unto  them 
*  Repent  and  be  baptized  every  one  of  you,  in  the  name  of  Jesus 
Christ,  for  the  remission  of  sins,'  Acts  ii.  28.  That  so  '  being  justi- 
fied by  his  grace,  we  should  be  made  (not  only  sons,  but)  heirs, 


'  Hooper's  Confession  of  Faith. 


2  Fifth  Sermon  on  Jonah. 


406 


according  to  the  hope  of  eternal  life,'  Tit.  iii.  7.  And  so  in  baptism 
our  faith  is  confirmed,  and  grace  increased,  by  virtue  of  prayer  to 
God,  not  by  virtue  of  the  water  itself,  but  by  virtue  of  prayer,  where- 
by God  is  prevailed  with  to  purify  our  souls  by  his  Spirit,  as  our 
bodies  are  washed  with  the  water  :  that  as  the  water  washeth  off 
the  pollutions  of  our  bodies,  so  his  Spirit  purgeth  away  the  corrup- 
tions of  our  souls. 

TAYLOR,  BISHOP. 

No  one  is  stronger  in  his  expressions  concerning 
Baptism  than  Bishop  Taylor.  He  quotes  the  most 
panegyrical  language  of  the  Fathers  as  expressing 
his  views — and  yet  in  concluding  his  account  of  its 
benefits,  he  uses  this  lanjruaore : 

"  Because  Baptism  consigns  it  and  admits  us  to  a  title  to  it  (viz. 
resurrection  with  Christ,)  we  are  said,  with  St.  Paul,  to  be  risen 
with  Christ  in  baptism:  buried  with  him  in  baptism,  &c.  Which 
expression  I  desire  to  be  remembered,  that  by  it  we  may  the  better 
understand  those  other  sayings  of  the  Apostle,  of  'putting  on  Christ 
in  Baptism — putting  on  the  new  man,  &c.,  for  these  only  signify, 
s-rc^j^ci^'/ifxa  or  the  design  on  GocTs  part,  and  the  endeavour  and  duty 
on  man'^s.  We  are  then  consigned  to  our  duty  and  reward.  We 
undertake  one,  and  have  a  title  to  the  other.  And  though  men  of 
ripeness  and  reason,  enter  instantly  on  their  portion  of  work,  and 
have  present  use  of  the  assistances  and  something  of  their  reward  in 
hand,  yet  we  cannot  conclude  that  those  who  cannot  do  it  presently, 
are  not  baptized  rightly  because  they  are  not  in  capacity  to  'put  on 
the  new  man'  in  righteousness,  that  is  in  an  actual  holy  life;  for 
they  may  'put  on  the  new  man'  in  Baptism, ^'ws^  as  they  are  risen 
with  Christ;  (that  is  as  he  has  before  said,  prospectively,  Hhe  real 
event  in  its  due  season'')  which  because  it  may  be  do^;e  by  faith, 
BEFORE  IT  IS  DO?{E  IN  REAL  EVENT,  and  it  may  be  done  hy  Sacra- 
ment and  design  before  it  be  done  by  a  proper  faith;  so  also  may 
our  putting  on  of  the  neio  man  be;  it  is  done  sacramentally ,  and 
that  part  which  is  wholly  the  work  of  God,  does  only  antedate  the 


'  Beveridge  on  the  27th  Article. 


407 


vork  of  man,  which  is  to  succeed  in  its  due  time  and  is  after  the 
manner  of  preventing  grace.'''^ 

Now  it  is  reasonably  asked  if  such  be  all  the  doc- 
trine of  the  Church  and  the  Divines  whom  vre  have 
quoted,  viz.,  that  Baptism  is  a  sign  of  separation  from 
the  world,  and  consecration  to  God;  a  seal  of  the 
Promises  of  God  to  those  who  truly  repent  and  be- 
lieve; an  effectual  sign  and  seal,  whereby  the  grace 
of  repentance  and  faith  is  confirmed  and  increased, 
how  can  such  strong  language  as  we  have  before 
quoted  be  explained  and  shewn  to  be  consistent  with 
"truth  and  soberness.'*' 

To  this  we  proceed  to  direct  our  attention.  But 
we  cannot  in  conscience  profess  to  get  round  the  lan- 
guage, by  such  a  device  as  that  contained  in  the  fol- 
lowing extracts  from  Bishop  Bethell  on  Regenera- 
tion, a  great  and  standard  work  with  Dr.  Pusey,  Dr. 
Hook,  &c. — the  device  of  making  an  entire  distinc- 
tion between  Regeneration  and  Renovation,  as  if  the 
latter  were  an  internal  and  spiritual  change,  which 
precedes  as  well  as  follows  Adult  Baptism,  and  is  not 
necessarily  implied  in  Infant  Baptism,  while  the  for- 
mer, after  all  the  immense  weight  of  strong  language 
laid  upon  it  by  the  Fathers  and  the  Reformers,  and 
in  our  Oxford  Divines,  par  excellence,  were  only  a 

1  The  following  is  from  Archbishop  Whitgift: 

"I  most  tell  joo,  that  I  make  the  holy  sacrament  of  Baptism  no  other  kind  of 
passage  than  God  himself  hath  made  it,  and  the  Church  of  Christ  hath  eTer 
held  it.  Good  and  e\il.  clean  and  unclean,  holy  and  profane,  mast  needs  pass 
by  it,  except  you  will  indeed  in  more  ample  and  large  manner  tie  the  grace  of 
God  unto  it,  than  even  did  the  Papists,  and  say  that  all  that  be  baptized  be  also 
saved;  or  else  join  with  the  Anabaptists  in  this,  that  after  baptism  a  man  can- 
not sin.  Who  can  tell  whether  he  be  holy  or  unholy,  good  or  evil,  clean  or 
andean,  elect  or  reprobate,  of  the  household  of  the  Church  or  not  of  the 
Church,  that  is  baptized,  be  he  infant,  or  at  the  years  of  discretion 


408 


change  of  state,  excluding  a  change  of  disposition, 
heart  and  temper. 

^^Regeneration,  (says  Bishop  Bethell  as  quoted  by  Dr.  Hook)  is 
the  joint  work  of  water  and  the  Spirit,  or  to  speak  more  properly, 
of  the  Spirit  only;  Renovation  is  the  joint  work  of  the  Spirit  and  the 
man.  Regeneration  comes  only  once,  in  or  through  Baptism.  Reno- 
vation exists  before,  in  and  after  Baptism,  and  may  often  be  re- 
peated."— "  This  is  what  is  meant  by  those  divines  who  maintain 
that  Regeneration  is  in  the  strict  sense  of  the  word  the  inward  and 
spiritual  grace  of  Baptism.  The  identity,  if  I  may  so  express  my- 
self, of  Baptism  and  Regeneration,  is  a  doctrine  which  manifestly 
pervades  the  writings  of  the  Fathers.  It  is  moreover  evident  that 
they  did  not  imagine  that  Baptism  produces  any  saving  effect  in 
adults  without  faith  and  repentance,  or,  in  other  words,  without 
some  previous  renewal  of  the  inward  frame.  Nor  do  they  appear 
to  have  supposed  any  positive  or  active  renewal  of  the  soul  takes 
place  in  infants.  Hence  it  follows  that  they  must  have  maintained 
this  distinction  between  regeneration  and  renovation  or  conversion, 
which,  in  the  present  day,  has  been  styled,  by  a  strange  fatality,  a 
novel  contrivance."^ 

Now  here  is  confession  indeed — viz.,  that  the  Fa- 
thers did  not  imagine  that  Baptism  regenerated  without 
previous  renerval,  that  is  without  previous  putting  off 
the  old  man,  and  putting  on  of  the  new ;  a  previous 
nerv  creation,  a  previous  conversion,  or  new  birth,  a 
previous  sanctification  of  the  Spirit,  what  others  call 
a  previous  '^spiritual  Regeneration^^ 

1  Bishop  Bethell  on  Regeneration,  p.  16,  quoted  in  Hook's  call  to  Union. 

2  Thus  in  one  place,  as  we  have  seen,  Hooker  is  quoted  by  these  writers  as 
saying  that  Baptism  is  ^Hhe  first  apparent  beginning  of  life,^^  and  *'  a  step 
to  our  sanctification  -which  hath  not  any  before  it"  and  we  are  expected  to  take 
his  words  in  the  fullest  and  most  literal  meaning;  and  then  we  are  recom- 
mended to  a  standard  writer  who  tells  us  regeneration  takes  place  in  the  bap- 
tism of  adults  -without  some  previous  renewal  of  the  in-ward  frame,  &c.  Re- 
ne-wal  means  a  making  7ie-w.  So  then  there  is  no  regeneration  in  Baptism  that 
is  not  preceded  by  a  spiritual  new  birth  or  new  creation.  And  is  this  no  be- 
ginning of  life,  no  step  to  sanctification  ? 


409 


Another  confession — ''Nor  do  they  (the  Fathers) 
appear  to  have  supposed  any  positive  or  active  renewal 
of  the  soul  takes  place  in  infants T  No  ''positive  re- 
nerval no  positive  creating  anew;  no  positive  put- 
ting off  of  the  old  man,  &c.  But  still  Baptism  is 
Regeneration  and  nothing  else  is.  What  then  is  Re- 
generation? The  doctrine  of  Bishop  Bethell  is  that 
adults,  before  Baptism,  are  converted  and  renerved, 
but  not  regenerated;  that  Infants,  in  Baptism,  are  re- 
generated, but  not  renewed  or  converted.  What  then 
is  Regeneration,  according  to  this  doctrine,  but  a 
mere  outward  work,  a  relative  change,  not  an  in- 
ward, an  ordinance  of  profession,  and  confirmation ;  a 
mere  signing  and  sealing,  with  no  renewing,  convert- 
ing, spiritually  regenerating  power;  for  what  is 
there  that  is  spiritual  in  Regeneration  which  is  not 
contained  in  conversion,  in  repentance,  in  faith — 
words  equivalent,  says  Bishop  Barrow,  to  '^  death 
unto  sin^  and  a  new  hirth  unto  righteousness.^^ 

Hence  in  the  Sermon  of  Dr.  Hook,  to  which  the 
above  extracts  from  Bishop  Bethel!  are  appended, 
we  have  the  following  summary  of  what  he  consi- 
ders the  difference  between  Regeneration  and  Reno- 
vation, which  he  charges  the  foreign  Reformers 
with  confounding,  the  former  he  says  is,  "a  change 
of  spiritual  state  and  relations,  the  latter  is  an  election 
of  grace,  with  a  subsequent  change  of  disposition, 
heart  and  temper.'"  This  he  says  is  taking  the  ex- 
pressions of  our  Church  services  "  in  all  the  simplicity 
and  fulness  of  their  meaning."^ 

Thus,  while  Bishop  Bethell  says,  "  Regeneration 


'  Hook's  Call  to  Union,  pp.  22,  23. 

52 


410 


is  in  the  strict  sense  of  the  word  the  inward  and 
spiritual  grace  of  Baptism  Dr.  Hook  interpreting 
him  says,  it  is  not  "  a  change  of  disposition,  heart 
and  temper,"  but  only  of  ''spiritual  state,  circum- 
stances and  relations,"  so  that  the  doctrine  of  the 
Church  catechism  that  "the  inward  and  spiritual 
grace"  of  Baptism  is  "a  death  unto  sin  and  a  new 
hirth  unto  Righteousness,''''  when  taken  all  the 
simplicity  and  fulness  of  its  meaning,''  is  nothing 
more  than  a  change  of  state,  circumstances  and  rela- 
tions, no  change  of  heart  or  disposition  or  temper. 
Now  this  we  must  style,  though  it  should  be  by  "a 
strange  fatality,"  "  a  novel  contrivance''  indeed.  Is  it 
thus  that  our  Oxford  divines  would  arise  above  the 
low  and  rationalistic  and  poverty-stricken  interpre- 
tations of  modern  theology,  (as  they  speak,)  and  con- 
duct us  back  to  the  fulness  and  depth  and  hidden 
mystery  and  awful  grandeur  of  the  doctrine  of  the 
Fathers  concerning  the  relations  of  Baptism  to  Re- 
generation and  Justification;  making  that  which, 
one  while,  they  represent  to  be  "  the  inwrapping  and 
conveying  of  the  whole  soul  of  religion,"  "the  Sanc- 
tification  and  the  Remission  and  the  Adoption  and 
the  Life,"  to  be  a  mere  change  of  relations  and  cir- 
cumstances !  We  cannot  in  any  way  reconcile  such 
statements  with  those  contained  in  Dr.  Pusey's 
"  Views  of  Baptism ;"  but  nevertheless  they  are 
taken  from  a  work  which  he  pronounces  a  standard 
on  this  subject,  and  they  go  strongly  to  shew  that, 
after  all  the  prodigious  accumulation  of  spiritual  and 
mystical  and  wondering  language,  which  Dr.  Pusey 
and  Mr.  Newman,  &c.,  employ  to  express  the  change 
wrought  in  and  by  Baptism,  which  they  say  is  a 


411 


\ 


spintual  regeneration,  a  new-creation,  a  nerv  hirth ; 
they  still  mean  a  something  which  is  spiritual  in  lit- 
tle else  than  that  it  is  mystical,  a  change  of  which 
repentance  and  faith  are  not  a  part,  because  they  go 
before  in  the  Adult,  a  something  therefore  which 
if  it  be  really  any  thing  more  than  a  change  of  state 
and  circumstances,  must  be  a  sort  of  tertium  quid,  a 
change  neither  of  inward  disposition  nor  outward  re- 
lation, neither  of  heart  nor  of  circumstances,  a  some- 
thing which  may  be  worthy  indeed  of  the  Quodlihets 
of  the  Schoolmen,  but  is  wholly  unw^orthy  to  be  used 
as  embracing  "the  fulness"  of  the  meaning  of  the 
Scriptures,  the  Fathers,  the  Reformers  and  the  Offi- 
ces of  our  Church. 

In  justice  to  these  authorities,  w^e  must  reject  all 
this  vain  device  of  a  distinction  so  vital  between 
Renovation  and  Regeneration.  Unquestionably  the 
former  is  a  term  of  more  extensive  meaning,  as  ap- 
plicable to  the  continuance,  as  well  as  the  beginning, 
of  spiritual  life  :  w^hile  the  latter  is  applicable  more 
strictly  to  the  heginning.  The  former  includes,  but 
is  not  diverse  from  the  latter.  A  glance  at  the  ex- 
pressions of  the  Fathers  and  Reformers  and  our 
standard  Divines  will  show  that  by  Regeneration, 
Renovation,  Conversion,  New^  Birth,  putting  off  the 
old  man.  Repentance,  &c.  they  meant  the  same  great 
inward  and  spiritual  change,  viz  :  "  a  death  unto  sin 
and  a  new  birth  unto  righteous?iess,'^  the  grace  of  which 
Baptism  is  the  sign  and  seal — and  they  certainly  do 
speak  of  all  these  as  being,  by  the  Spirit  of  God,  ef- 
fected, in  some  sense,  in  Baptism.  If  Hooker,  in  a 
passage  above  quoted,  ascribes  to  Baptism  "the  in- 
fusion of  that  grace  which  givoth  to  the  soul  the  first 


412 


disposition  towards future  newness  oflife^'  then  surely 
he  ascribes  to  it  Repentance^  Faith,  Renovation,  Con- 
version, since  none  of  these  can  take  place  without  the 
first  disposition  towards  newness  of  life.  In  the  Ho- 
mily for  Whitsunday  to  be  regenerate,  horn  anew, 
new  men  in  Christ  Jesus,  to  have  godly  motions,  agree- 
able to  the  will  of  God,  stirred  up  by  the  Holy  Ghost 
in  our  hearts,  are  equivalent  expressions.  Cranmer 
in  his  Sermon  on  Baptism,  says  that  by  the  second 
birth  in  Baptism  we  mean  that  which  is  spiritual, 
whereby  our  inward  man  and  mind  are  renewed  by 
the  Holy  Ghost  so  that  our  hearts  and  minds  receive 
new  desires,  &c. — that  in  this  baptismal  regeneration 
^^the  love  of  God  is  shed  abroad  in  our  hearts'' — and 
"  we  are  made  new  creatures'^ — and  this  is  "  a  mar- 
vellous alteration  and  renewing  of  the  inw^ard  man,'* 
so  that  "  new  affections  and  spiritual  motions  are  in 
the  souls  of  such  as^  are  born  again  by  Baptism."  In- 
stances of  the  same  use  of  terms  might  be  multiplied 
indefinitely.  One  from  Bishop  Beveridge  is  at  hand, 
and  will  suffice.  He  calls  "  spiritual  Regeneration 
the  renewing  the  Spirit  of  our  minds  and  so  in- 
fusing into  them  a  principle  of  new  life,  whereby 
they  become  new-creatures,'^^  &c.  In  another  sermon 
he  says  of  Repentance,  precisely  the  same,  viz :  that 
it  is  that  "whereby  a  man  is  quite  changed  from 
what  he  was  and  therefore  is  called  a  new  man  and 
a  new  creature,  because  old  things  are  passed  away  and 
all  things  are  become  new  in  him."^  And  this,  which 
Beveridge  says  is  Repentance,  the  Homily  for  Whit- 
sunday says,  is  Regeneration — "  Such  is  the  power 


»  Sermon,  No.  81,  2  ib.  No.  84. 


413 


of  the  Holy  Ghost  to  regenerate  men  and  as  it  were 
to  bring  them  forth  anew,  so  that  they  shall  be  nothing 
like  the  men  that  they  were  before^ 

Such  then  being  the  evident  convertibility  of  the 
terms  Regeneration,  Renovation,  Conversion,  New- 
Creature,  Repentance,  &c.,  as  connected  with  Bap- 
tism, in  the  use  of  those  who  speak  of  the  effects  of 
Baptism  in  the  strongest  terms,  we  must  wholly  re- 
ject the  distinction  between  Regeneration,  as  only 
^'a  change  of  spiritual  state,  relations  and  circum- 
stances,''^ and  Renovation  as  ''a  change  of  heart,  dis- 
position and  temper,''  which  Bishop  Bethell,  and 
those  who  call  his  work  a  standard,  would  teach; 
we  must  speak  of  spiritual  Regeneration  as  being 
the  "inward  and  spiritual  grace"  of  which  Baptism  is 
sign,''^  and  that  spiritual  grace  or  death  unto  sin 
and  new  birth  unto  righteousness,  as  being  neither 
more  nor  less  than  a  change  of  heart,  disposition  and 
temper,  whereby,  men  are  so  changed  "  that  they  be 
nothing  like  the  men  they  were  before ^  We  must  reject 
their  doctrine,  who  contend  that  a  sinner  repenting 
and  believing  in  the  Lord  Jesus  Christ,  is  not  spirit- 
ually regenerate  nor  justified  before  God,  until  he  re- 
ceive the  Sacrament  of  Justification  and  Regenera- 
tion, although  confessedly  renewed,  and  having  that 
repentance  which  is  a  change  of  heart ;  in  other  words 
that  he  cannot  with  a  renewed  inward  frame  and  a 
change  of  heart,  be  justified  until  he  receive  the  out- 
ward sigji,  cannot  have  peace  from  God  till  he  have 
the  seal  of  that  peace  from  man.  The  fact  that  this 
hard  doctrine  could  not  be  maintained  without  doinof 


•  Art.  xxvii. 


414 


such  utter  \dolence  to  all  ideas  of  Spiritual  Regenera- 
tion, robbing  it  of  all  real  spirituality,  giving  all  the 
real  glory  to  Renovation,  as  being  quite  another  thing 
in  its  nature,  is  one  of  the  strongest  evidences  that 
Baptismal  Regeneration  or  Justification,  in  their 
sense  cannot  explain  the  language  of  our  Church 
and  of  her  standard  Divines,  cannot  be  the  doctrine 
of  the  Fathers,  or  the  Scriptures. 

What  then  is  the  explanation  of  the  strong  lan- 
guage of  our  old  Divines,  and  of  the  Fathers  before 
them,  as  to  the  benefits  connected  with  Baptism? 
We  answer,  precisely  that  which  the  Homilies  quote 
from  St.  Augustine. 

*'  Writing  to  Bonifacius  of  the  Baptism  of  Infants,  he  (Augustine) 
saith,  '  If  sacraments  had  not  a  certain  similitvdc  of  those  things, 
whereof  they  be  sacraments,  they  should  be  no  sacraments  at  all. 
And  of  this  similitude^  they  do  for  the  most  part  receive  the  names 
of  the  selfsame  things  they  signify.""^ 

These  words  of  Augustine,  are  thus  applied  by 
Bishop  Jewel: 

*'  Therefore  after  a  certain  manner  of  speech  (and  not  otherwise) 
the  Sacrament  of  the  Body  of  Christ  is  called  the  Body  of  Christ  ; 
so  the  Sacrament  of  faith  is  faith." 

And  of  course  also,  the  Sacrament  of  Regeneration 
is,  after  a  certain  manner  of  speech,  and  not  otherwise^ 
called  Regeneration.    Again  in  another  place : 

"  We  must  consider  that  the  learned  Fathers,  in  iheir  treatises  of 
the  Sacraments,  sometimes  use  the  outward  sign  instead  of  the  thing 
signified  ;  sometimes  they  use  the  thing  signified  instead  of  the  sign. 
As  for  example,  sometimes  they  name  Christ's  blood  instead  of  the 
water.  Sometimes  they  name  the  water  instead  of  Christ's  blood — 
this  exchange  of  names  is  much  used  among  the  learned,  specially 
speaking  of  the  sacraments.    St.  Augustine,  using  the  water  (in 


'Homily  on  Common  Prayer,  &c. 


415 


Baptism)  in  place  of  the  blood  of  Christ,  saith  thus — breaheth 
the  bond  of  sin — it  doth  renew  a  man  in  one  Christ.^  Again  Bi- 
shop Jewel  quotes  from  Augustine  to  the  same  point,  'Now  ye  are 
clean  through  the  word  that  I  have  spoken  to  you.'  But  why  saith 
he  not  (Augustine) — Now  ye  are  clean,  because  of  the  Baptism 
wherewith  ye  are  washed ;  saving  that  because  in  the  water,  it  is 
the  word  that  maketh  clean?  Therefore  Augustine  saith,  ^The 
water  giveth  us  outwardly  the  sacrament  of  grace.^  'And  this 
(says  Jewel)  is  the  power  and  virtue  of  the  Sacraments.' " 

Thus,  in  the  estimation  of  Jewel,  the  use  of  the 
thing  signified,  instead  of  the  sign,  calUng  Baptism 
Regeneration,  instead  of  ''the  sign  of  Regeneration;" 
precisely  as  when  we  say  the  body  of  Christ,  instead 
of  the  sign  thereof,  explains  the  whole  language  of 
the  Fathers  on  this  subject.^ 

Now  then  let  us  apply  the  language  of  Augustine. 
The  Sacrament  of  Baptism,  since  it  has  a  certain  si- 
militude of  that  which  it  signifies,  does  for  the  most 
part  receive  the  name  of  the  self-same  thing  it  signi- 
fies. This  it  has  received  in  the  Scriptures,  and  so 
is  called  the  ''Baptism  for  the  remission  of  sins,"  be- 
cause it  signifies  remission  of  sins;  it  is  called  ''the 
Washing  of  Regeneration,"  because  it  signifies  that 
washing;  it  is  called  by  the  Fathers  and  our  Re- 
formers, &c.,  the  new  birth,  the  new  creation.  In 
Baptism  they  say  we  receive  remission  of  sins,  the 
righteousness  of  Christ,  and  even  the  first  motion  of 
soul  towards  divine  things;  because  in  Baptism  these 
are  signified,  and  the  promises  of  them  are  sealed, — 
the  actual  grace  which  is  signified,  being  considered 
as  already  possessed  in  the  required  repentance  and 
faith  of  the  catechumen. 


•Jewel  on  Sacraments— Fathers  of  the  English  Church,  vol.  vii.  pp.  484,  5. 
Defence  of  the  Apology,  vii.  698,  9. 


416 


Now  if  any  one  will  reflect,  he  will  perceive  that 
we  have  precisely  a  similar  mode  of  speech  with  re- 
gard to  other  matters  in  religion,  in  regard  to  which 
it  is  well  understood,  and  occasions  no  difficulty,  or 
misunderstanding.  For  example,  it  is  universal  among 
divines  to  speak  of  Baptism  as  the  admission  of  a  per- 
son into  the  Church  of  Christ — and  until  baptized  he 
is  not  considered  as  a  member  of  the  Church.  But 
it  is  also  very  common  to  speak  of  the  children  of  be- 
lievers being  in  the  Church  from  their  hirth.  Thus 
Usher  speaks  of  children  ''being  born  iii  the  bosom  of 
the  Church,'"^  and  Hooker  says  ''7ve  are  plainly  taught 
of  God  thai  the  seed  of faithful  parentage  is  holy  from 
the  very  birthP^  And  so  Bishop  Jewel:  ''Infants  are 
a  part  of  the  Church  of  God.  Why  should  they  not 
bear  the  marh  of  Christ — why  should  they  not  par- 
take of  the  Sacrament  (Baptism)  together  with  the 
faithful?"^ 

Now  here  are  children  made  members  of  the 
Church  by  Baptism,  rvho  rvere  already  holy,  and  mem- 
bers by  birth.  How  is  this?  The  answer  is  plain. 
The  one  membership  was  real,  but  not  visible,  not 
sacramental,  not  signed  and  sealed  by  visible  ordi- 
nance, so  as  to  be  professed  before  men.  When  they 
were  made  members  by  Baptism,  they  were  no  more 
really  in  the  Church  than  before;  but  they  became 
visibly  members;  their  membership  had  a  sacramen- 
tal sign  and  seal  upon  it,  which  made  it  a  matter  of 
profession  and  vow,  and  gave  them  access  to  the  visi- 
ble ordinances  of  the  house  of  God. 

Now  precisely  as  the  Baptism  of  adults  is  said  to 


1  Body  of  Divinity,  391.  2Eccl.  Pol.  v.  §  60. 

as  quoted  in  his  Life  by  Le  Bas,  p.  336. 


3  Jewel's  Writings 


417 


give  Regeneration,  when  it  is  supposed  to  have  been 
possessed  before,  so  is  the  Baptism  of  infants  said  to 
give  membership  in  the  Church  when  it  is  considered 
as  having  been  possessed  before.  The  sign,  in  both 
cases,  receives,  as  Augustine  says,  the  name  of  the 
self-same  thing  which  it  signifies. 

The  same  language  is  common  with  regard  to  the 
Lord's  Supper. 

The  Lord's  Supper  is  called  the  Sacrament  of  the 
body  and  blood  of  Christ.  In  it,  the  true  believer 
is  said  to  receive  by  faith  and  spiritually  the  Body 
and  Blood  of  Christ  to  his  soul's  health.  Just  as 
much  as  Regeneration  is  anywhere  ascribed  to  Bap- 
tism, is  this  receiving  of  Christ  ascribed  to  the  Eu- 
charist; and  just  for  the  same  reason  that  we  should 
infer  that  regeneration  is  not  received  but  in  Bap- 
tism, must  we  infer  that  the  body  and  blood  of 
Christ  are  not  received  but  in  the  Lord's  Supper.  But 
all  our  old  divines  and  all  the  Fathers  held  that  the 
body  and  blood  of  Christ  are  received  elsewhere  than 
in  the  Eucharist.  Bradford,  for  example,  quotes  Au- 
gustine and  Jerome,  &c.,  as  follows: 

"  St.  Augustine  writes  that  Christ  is  received  sometimes  visibly, 
and  sometimes  invisibly.  The  visible  receiving  he  calls  that  which 
is  by  the  Sacrament;  the  invisible,  that  which  is  by  the  exercise  of 
our  faith  with  ourselves.  And  St.  Jerome  affirms  that  we  are  fed 
with  the  body  of  Christ  and  we  drink  his  blood,  not  only  in  mystery 
(Sacrament)  but  also  in  the  knowledge  of  Holy  Scripture,  wherein  he 
plainly  shows  that  the  same  meat  is  offered  in  the  words  of  Scrip- 
ture as  in  the  Sacraments,  so  that  Christ's  body  and  blood  is  no  less 
offered  by  the  Scriptures  than  by  the  Sacraments." 

Bradford  also  quotes  Jerome  as  saying  that  where 

Christ  says,  ^'He  that  eateth  my  flesh,  &c.,  it  is  more 

true  to  take  Christ's  body  and  blood  for  the  word  of 
53  ^ 


418 


the  Scriptures  and  the  doctrine  of  God."  Bradford 
denies  that  a  man  may  ordinarily  receive  Christ's 
body  by  faith  in  the  hearing-  of  his  word,  with  so 
much  sensible  assurance  as  by  receiving  the  Sacra- 
ments; but  adds,  "Not  that  Christ  is  not  so  much 
present  in  his  word  preached,  as  he  is  in  or  with  his 
sacrament,  but  because  there  are  in  the  perception 
more  windows  (more  senses)  open  for  Christ  to  enter 
into  us,  than  by  his  word  preached."^ 

The  same  doctrine  is  thus  expressed  by  Dr.  Jack- 
son : 

They  are  said  to  eat  Christ's  flesh  and  drink  his  blood  spiritu- 
ally which  rightly  apprehend  his  death  and  passion,  which  by  Faiih 
meditate  and  ruminate  upon  them,  &c.  He  which  thus  eateth 
Christ's  flesh,  and  drinketh  his  blood  hy  faith,  although  he  do  not 
(for  the  time  present)  eat  his  body  or  drink  his  blood  sacramental' 
ly^  hath  a  true  interest  in  this  promise  {^He  that  eateth  my  flesh,  &c. 
dwelleth  in  me,  and  I  in  him,)  so  he  do  not  neglect  to  eat  his  body 
and  drink  his  blood,  sacramentally  when  occasion  requires  and  op- 
portunity serves.  So  that  spiritual  eating  and  drinking  Christ 
by  faith  is  the  true  preparation  for  the  worthy  receiving  of  his 
body  and  blood  sacramentally.''^^ 

Now  here  is  expressed,  by  an  authority  which 
Oxford  divines  cannot  but  respect,  the  important 
distinction  between  receiving  rcalli/  and  sacramen- 
tally) inwardly  by  faith,  visibly  by  ordinance:  sav- 
ingly by  the  former ;  professedly  by  the  latter ;  the 
two  united  w^hen  the  Sacrament  is  properly  received  ; 
but  not  so  inseparable  but  that  the  true  believer  re- 
ceives the  grace  signified  in  the  Sacrament  before 
the  sign,  the  unbeliever  cannot  receive  the  grace  sig- 
nified 7vith  the  sign. 


Sermon  on  the  Lord's  Supper. 


^  Jackson's  Works  iii.  p.  334. 


419 


Now  let  it  be  remembered  that  precisely  the  same 
definition  is  given  by  the  Articles  to  both  Sacraments. 
The  relation  of  the  sign  to  the  thing  signified,  which 
is  all  that  concerns  us  now,  is  defined  in  one  precise- 
ly as  in  the  other.  We  may  therefore  just  change 
names,  and  the  above  language  of  Dr.  Jackson, 
which  is  none  other  than  what  is  common  elsewhere, 
will  be  equally  suitable  to  Baptism  and  to  the  Eu- 
charist.   With  such  change  it  will  thus  read : 

'  They  that  repent  and  believe  are  regenerated 
and  justified  spiritually,  though  (for  the  time  pre- 
sent) they  be  not  (by  Baptism)  regenerated  and  jus- 
tified sacramentalhj ;  yet  they  have  a  true  interest 
in  the  promise  he  that  helieveth  shall  be  saved,  so  they 
do  not  neglect  to  be  regenerate,  &c.,  sacrament  ally, 
when  occasion  requires  and  opportunity  serves.  So 
that  spiritual  Regeneration  and  Justification  are 
the  preparatives  for  the  worthy  receiving  the  sacra- 
ment aV 

Thus,  as  in  the  Lord's  Supper,  the  signs  receive 
the  name  of  the  self  same  thing  which  they  signify," 
and  we  call  the  spiritual  and  sacramental  by  pre- 
cisely the  same  name  of  ''eating  and  drinking  the 
body  and  blood  of  Christ,'^  and  yet  without  confusion 
or  misunderstanding;  so  did  our  old  Divines,  and  so 
may  we  speak  in  regard  to  Baptism.  We  may  say 
that  adults  coming  in  repentance  and  faith  receive 
remission  of  sins  in  Baptism;  because  they  do  re- 
ceive it  as  they  have  not  before,  viz:  sacramentally ; 
under  a  form  whereby  the  promises  which  they  have 
previously  embraced  by  faith,  are  "  visibly  signed 
and  sealed so  that  what  they  have  been  before 
really  before  God,  they  are  now  professedly  before 


420 


men;  what  before  they  had  promised  only  in  the 
sight  of  Him  who  searcheth  the  heart,  they  have 
now  stipulated  before  his  Church  which  can  only 
look  upon  the  outward  vow;  what  before  entitled 
them  to  the  inheritance  of  the  kingdom  of  heaven, 
being  now  sacramentally  signed  and  sealed,  enti- 
tles them  also  to  the  communion  and  fellowship  of 
the  Church  on  earth. 

Whoever  will  now  examine  the  27th  Article  on 
Baptism,  with  the  above  explanation  will  perceive 
that  we  have  exactly  expressed  its  meaning.^ 

We  might  carry  this  analogy  further  and  shew 
that  throughout  the  ordinances  of  the  Gospel — this 
language  which  seems  so  strong  in  regard  to  Bap- 
tism, is  used,  mutatis  mutandis^  without  confusion  or 
difficulty.  The  outward  and  visible  call  of  the  Church 
to  the  ministry  and  its  relation  to  the  inward  and 
spiritual  call  of  the  Holy  Ghost,  which  is  required 
to  precede  it;  and  the  use  of  the  same  language  for 
the  outward,  as  for  the  inward,  as  if  the  former  was 
not  till  the  latter  come,  and  as  if  the  latter  always  is, 
where  the  former  is  professed,  would  be  a  case  in  point. 

The  instance  of  our  blessed  Lord  being  anointed 
invisibly  by  the  Holy  Ghost,  fully  and  perfectly  for 
his  ministry,  but  not  being  anointed  in  one  sense, 


Baptism  is  not  only  a  sign  of  profession,  and  mark  of  difference,  whereby 
Christian  men  are  discerned  from  others  that  be  not  christened  ;  but  it  is  also  a 
sign  of  Regeneration,  or  New  Birth  ;  whereby,  as  by  an  instrument,  they  that 
receive  Baptism  rightly,  are  grafted  into  the  Church  ;  the  promises  of  forgive- 
ness of  sin,  and  our  adoption  to  be  the  sons  of  God  by  the  Holy  Ghost,  are  visi- 
bly signed  and  sealed ;  faith  is  confirmed  ;  and  grace  increased,  by  virtue  of 
prayer  unto  God.  The  Baptism  of  young  children  is  in  any  wise  to  be  re- 
tained in  the  Church,  as  most  agreeable  with  the  institution  of  Christ."  Art. 
rixvii. 


421 


viz:  outward  and  visihhj  or  sacramentally,  till  his 
baptism,  when  tlie  Holy  Ghost  descended  in  visible 
sign  upon  him,  not  conferring  new  powers,  but  only 
addino^  the  outw^ard  siorn  of  an  unction  which  he  had 
had  from  his  birth;  might  vv^ell  be  used  for  illustra- 
tion— seeing  that  when  Jesus  is  said  to  have  been 
anointed  for  his  work  on  earth,  as  a  Prophet,  Priest 
and  King,  that  visible  anointing  in  the  river  Jordan, 
is  referred  to  as  if  no  other  had  preceded  it. 

But  it  is  not  merely  in  religious  things  that  such 
language  is  common.  It  is  of  notorious  use  and  clear 
comprehension  in  the  rtiost  common  transactions  of 
life.  For  example.  A  man  purchases  an  estate, 
pays  the  price,  enters  on  the  possession,  but  for  some 
reason  or  other  he  has  not  yet  received  the  title  deed. 
When  that  deed  is  executed,  signed,  sealed  and  de- 
livered, then  the  estate  is  said  in  law,  to  be  conveijed. 
The  title  is  then  said  to  become  vested  in  him, 
precisely  as  if  he  had  had  none  before;  and  this 
simply  because,  as  the  law  knows  no  evidence  of 
title  but  the  visible  instrument,  it  can  recognize  no 
title  as  existing  without  it.  But  shall  we  take  this 
language  of  the  law  and  in  our  private  judgments 
conclude  from  it  that  there  was  no  previous  actual 
and  equitable  title?  We  say  no;  that  language 
refers  only  to  the  title  hefore  a  human  tribunal  which 
must  depend  on  such  an  instrument.  A  court 
of  law  cannot  go  into  any  other  investigation  than 
that  of  the  signed  and  sealed  document.  Bui  before 
the  judgment  of  equity ;  of  Him  who  searcheth  the 
secrets  of  men  there  may  have  been  a  true  and 
rightful  title  long  before  that  deed  was  executed. 
All  this  is  familiar.    Men  wlien  they  hear  the  law 


422 


pronounce  an  estate,  which  long  before  was  pos- 
sessed, to  be  first  conveyed^  when  the  deed  is  deUv- 
ered ;  see  nothing  difficult  to  be  explained.  The 
difference  between  the  real  and  the  visible ;  the  re- 
ception truly  and  the  reception  formally;  the  title 
before  God  and  the  title  before  a  human  tribunal, 
of  the  same  thing,  is  so  notorious  in  a  civil  com- 
monwealth that  it  occasions  no  misunderstanding. 
Let  it  then  be  considered  that  the  Church  is  a 
Commonwealth,  with  her  laws  and  privileges  of  citi- 
zenship and  modes  of  ascertaining  citizenship  pre- 
cisely as  other  Commonwealths  have ;  that  all  her 
visible  administration  on  earth  is  by  the  agency  of 
men  as  incapable  of  looking  beyond  the  outward  ap- 
pearance and  the  visible  sign  and  seal  and  convey- 
ance and  profession,  as  those  who  sit  in  the  high 
places  of  other  commonwealths — then  the  keeping  in 
mind  of  the  two  following  simple  principles,  will 
render  the  language  of  the  Church  as  to  the  posses- 
sion of  grace,  just  as  plain  as  the  language  of  the 
.State  in  regard  to  the  title  of  earthly  tenements. 

First,  that  the  Church  can  know  no  private  history, 
nor  speak  of  any  one  on  the  ground  of  his  private  ex- 
perience of  religion;  but  can  only  know  him  as  a 
Christian  through  his  public  profession  of  repentance 
and  faith,  and  his  public  entering  upon  the  vows  of 
consecration  to  God :  so  that  though  an  unbaptized 
person  may  have  been  a  new-creature  for  a  long  time, 
and  affectionately  treated  as  such  by  the  individual 
members  of  the  Church,  yet  he  cannot  be  known  as 
such  by  the  Church  collectively  and  formally  till  the 
moment  when  he  makes  a  credible  profession  of  re- 
pentance and  faith  in  the  appointed  Sacrament,  and 


423 


thus  marks  himself,  visibly,  as  a  Christian,  and  draws 
the  open  line  of  separation  from  the  world.  The 
time  therefore  of  his  doing  this  is  properly  called  by 
the  Church,  the  time  of  his  repenting  and  believing, 
the  time  of  being  regenerated  and  justified;  just  as 
the  place  where  a  stream  of  water  issues  from  the 
ground  is  called  the  place  of  its  beginning,  though  it 
have  been  runnino^  a  lono^  distance  before  that,  in  the 
secret  channels  of  the  earth.  This  idea  is  precisely 
expressed  by  Bishop  Jewel  when  he  says : 

*'If  any  be  not  baptized,  but  lacketh  the  mark  of  God's  fold,  we 
cannot  discern  him  to  be  one  of  the  flock.  If  any  take  not  the  seal 
of  regeneration,  we  cannot  say  he  is  born  the  child  of  God." 

But  he  has  just  before  said  that  "  God  knoweth 
who  are  his" — that  is  He  needs  no  seal  of  Reo^enera- 
tion  to  distinguish  them.  And  thus  says  Jewel,  "the 
Sacrament  of  Baptism  is  the  badge  and  recognizance 
of  every  Christian 

Secondly :  as  the  Sacrament  of  Baptism  is,  ac- 
cording to  our  Article,  a  ''sign  of  Regeneration  or  New 
Birth,  whereby  as  by  an  Instrument,  they  that  re- 
ceive Baptism  rightly,  are  grafted  into  the  Church, 
and  the  promise  of  the  forgiveness  of  sin  and  of  their 
adoption  to  be  sons  of  God,  by  the  Holy  Ghost,  is 
visibly  signed  and  sealed till  that  instrimtent,  w4th 
its  signing  and  sealing  be  executed,  a  person  can  no 
more  be  regarded  by  the  Commonwealth  of  the 
Christian  Church  as  in  possession  of  forgiveness  of 
sins,  and  of  the  adoption  of  sons  of  God,  however  truly 
he  may  have  been  inw^ardly  and  spiritually  regene- 
rated and  justified,  than  the  state  can  regard  a  per- 


1  On  the  Sacraments — Fathers  of  the  English  Church,  vii.  p.  501. 


424 


son  as  entitled  to  a  property,  unless  he  can  shew  the 
title  deed.  And  therefore  that  person  is  rightly  said 
by  the  Church  not  to  have  come  to  those  blessings, 
until  he  has  been  baptized,  because  she  has  no  evi- 
dence of  the  title ;  while  at  the  same  time,  as  by  the 
supposition  he  is  not  wilfully  neglecting  or  despising 
Baptism.  He  who  judgeth  not  by  the  outward  ap- 
pearance, and  needs  not  signs  and  seals,  but  looketh 
upon  the  heart,  may  say  to  him,  ^'Son  he  of  good 
cheer,  thy  sins  he  forgiven  theeP 

There  is  one  important  difference  indeed  between 
the  signing  and  sealing  in  civil  transactions  and  in 
those  of  the  Sacraments  of  the  Gospel.  The  former 
are  only  signs — without  any  accompanying  force,  but 
as  they  are  evidence  of  a  certain  fact.  The  latter 
however  are  said  to  be  ''not  only  badges  or  tokens, 
but  rather  they  be  certain  sure  witnesses  and  effectual 
signs  of  grace  and  of  God's  good  will  tow^ard  us,  by 
the  which  he  doth  work  invisihhj  in  us,  and  doth  not 
only  quichen,  hut  also  strengthen  and  confirm  our  faith 
in  him.'"^  In  other  words,  that  good  work  which 
God  hath  begun  in  his  people,  he  by  the  Holy  Spirit, 
through  the  Sacrament,  doth  carry  on  in  them,  so 
that  ''Faith  is  confirmed  and  grace  increased  by  vir- 
tue of  prayer  unto  God." 

The  application  of  this  common-sense  method  of 
interpreting  the  Scriptures,  the  language  of  the  Fa- 
thers and  Reformers,  when  they  speak  of  the  efficacy 
of  Baptism,  and  the  absolute  necessity  of  such  me- 
thod, unless  we  would  charge  them  with  numerous 
and  glaring  contradictions,  may  be  illustrated  by  the 


'  Art.  XXV. 


425 


language  of  Nowell's  Catechism.  The  authority  of 
that  Catechism  as  representing  the  doctrines  of  the 
Church  was  of  the  highest  grade  in  the  age  of 
Elizabeth,  as  will  be  seen  in  the  next  Chapter,  where 
its  evidence  will  be  adduced  on  the  nature  of  justi- 
fying righteousness  and  faith.  On  the  subject  of 
the  Sacraments,  its  definitions  are  only  an  enlarge- 
ment upon  the  language  used  in  our  present  Articles 
and  Catechism.  Take  one  set  of  expressions  in  that 
work  in  relation  to  Baptism,  and  it  would  appear, 
just  as  we  have  shown  of  other  vrritings,  as  if  the 
highest  degree  of  regenerating  and  justifying  effica- 
cy were  ascribed  to  that  Sacrament ;  as  if  those  who 
come  to  it  were  not  spiritually  regenerate,  or  justi- 
fied, till  baptized,  and  as  if  all  the  baptized  were,  in 
the  act  of  Baptism,  spiritually  both  regenerated  and 
justified.  For  example.  Speaking  of  the  two  Sa- 
craments Baptism  and  the  Holy  Supper,  the  Cate- 
chism says  "  hy  the  former  we  are  horn  again.''''  "  As 
in  Baptism  God  truly  delivereth  us  forgiveness  of  sins 
and  newness  of  life,  so  do  w^e  certainly  receive  them." 

Thus  it  would  seem  to  be  taught  that  before  Bap- 
tism, we  are  not  born  again;  and  in  Baptism  we  are 
born  again  and  receive  remission  of  sin  and  newness 
of  life,  in  the  strictest  sense. 

But  let  us  see  how  this  interpretation  will  hold 
wdth  other  language  of  the  same  Catechism,  con- 
cerning Baptism.  In  answer  to  the  question  "in 
what  the  use  of  Baptism  consisteth,"  the  Catechism 
answers:  ''In  faith  and  repentance''  In  other  words, 
in  faith  and  repentance  consists  the  inward  and  spir- 
itual grace  of  which  the  Sacrament  is  a  sign  and 
pledge  and  which  it  is  effectual  in  promoting.  Of 

54 


426 


course — a  godly  sorrow  and  a  living  faith  or  else  they 
would  not  be  benefits  of  Baptism.  But  immediately 
proceeds  the  Catechism,  to  speak  of  that  very  repent- 
ance and  faith,  as  ''required  in  persons  grown  m 
years  before  they  be  baptized."  But  certainly  such 
repentance  and  faith  cannot  exist  where  there  is  no 
newness  of  life.""  And  yet  "  newness  of  life''  was 
before  said  to  be  given  us  of  God  in  Baptism,  to- 
gether with  remission  of  sins.  Here  then  is  the  ap- 
parent contradiction.  Newness  of  life  granted  in 
Baptism,  and  yet  required  as  a  preparation  for  Bap- 
tism. But  there  can  be  no  newness  of  life  without 
being  born  again  of  the  Holy  Ghost — spiritually  re- 
generate. Therefore  we  have  it  in  substance  stated 
that  *'by  Baptism  we  are  born  again"  and  yet  before 
Baptism  and  for  it,  we  are  required  to  be  born  again. 
How  can  these  things  be?  Certainly  there  is  no  real 
contradiction.  But  where  lies  the  explanation?  Ox- 
ford Divinity  can  furnish  none,  since  it  supposes  the 
faith  that  precedes  Baptism  to  be  not  living  because 
unbaptized,  and  so  of  course  there  is  no  spiritual  new- 
ness of  life.  It  is  therefore  essentially  contradictory 
to  the  language  we  are  attempting  to  explain.  Where 
then  is  the  solution?  Why  most  manifestly  in  the 
recollection  of  the  difference  between  the  sacramental 
and  the  spiritual;  between  receiving  the  body  and 
blood  of  Christ  (the  inward  and  spiritual  grace  of  the 
Lord's  Supper)  sacramentally  or  merely  by  the  signs, 
which  the  wicked  do,  to  their  condemnation;  and 
receiving  the  same  spiritually,  by  faith  of  the  heart, 
as  the  righteous  do,  and  are  nourished  to  their  soul's 
health;  between  receiving  "the  washing  of  Regen- 
eration" sacramentally,  in  the  outward  emblem  of 


427 


Baptism,  and  spiritually  in  the  faith  of  a  contrite 
heart.  Thus  when  we  speak  sacramentally,  it  is 
right  to  say  of  those  in  general  who  are  baptized, 
that  in  Baptism  they  are  horn  of  God,  because  then 
the  profession  of  newness  of  life  is  made;  then,  the 
seal  of  the  Church  is  set  upon  that  profession;  then 
the  promises  of  God  to  those  who  embrace  them  are 
visibly  pledged  and  assured;  then  the  man  is  re- 
ceived into  visible  fellowship  of  the  household  of 
faith,  and  communion  with  the  people  of  God.  Then 
therefore  his  Christian  life  as  one  of  the  children  of 
God,  visibly  and  professedly  begins.  It  could  not 
be  known  and  recognized  and  spoken  of  by  the 
Church  till  then,  though  before  God  it  was  indeed 
begun.  Most  properly  therefore  is  he  said  by  the 
Church,  speaking  in  reference  to  her  Sacraments,  to 
have  then,  in  Baptism,  received  of  God  remission 
of  sins  and  newness  of  life,""  precisely  as  in  the  de- 
livery of  a  deed,  a  man  is  said  to  have  received  the 
conveyance  of  an  estate,  which  he  has  been  long  en- 
joying, and  of  which  before  God  he  has  long  been 
the  rightful  owner. 

Now  that  such  is  the  meaning  of  the  apparently 
contradictory  language  of  the  Church,  as  expressed 
by  the  Catechism  in  review,  will  be  manifest  from 
a  few  citations. 

In  answer  to  the  question  :  "Do  all  generally  and 
without  difference  receive  this  grace  V  (viz :  of  Bap- 
tism) it  is  answered : 

"  The  only  faithful  receive  this  fruit ;  but  the  unbelieving  in  refus- 
ing the  promises  offered  them  by  God,  shut  up  the  entry  against 
themselves  and  go  away  empty.  Yet  do  they  not  thereby  make 
that  the  Sacraments  lose  their  force  and  efficacy." 


42S 


So  then  we  see  that  Baptism  loses  not  its  force 
and  efficacy  even  where  the  receiver  goes  away 
empty.  Why?  Because  its  force  and  efficacy,  as  a 
sacrament,  are  those  of  a  visible  sign  and  seal.  These 
the  unbeliever  can  receive,  as  truly  as  a  believer, 
though  to  his  greater  condemnation.  If  the  ''force 
and  efficacy"  consisted  in  a  spiritual  regeneration 
and  justification,  how  could  the  language  of  the 
above  citation  be  explained?  But  again,  '"the  only 
faithful  receive  this  fruit P  What  fruit?  The  con- 
text says  regeneration  and  the  forgiveness  of  sins. 
But  who  are  the  faithful?  This  word  is  exclusively 
used  in  the  Catechism  for  the  possessors  of  a  living 
faith,  as  for  example:  '-'The  true  faith  goeth  further. 
For  thus  far  not  only  ungodly  men,  but  also  the  very 
de^^ls  do  believe;  and  therefore  neither  are  they  in- 
deed faithful,  nor  are  so  called^  So  that  only  they 
who  come  to  Baptism  with  a  living  faith,  receive  re- 
generation and  remission  of  sins.  But  even  Oxford 
Divines  will  not  pretend  that  living  faith  can  be 
where  regeneration  and  justification  are  not.  So 
that  it  comes  to  this,  that  only  those  do  receive 
regeneration  and  remission,  in  Baptism,  who  have  re- 
ceived them  before.  What  can  be  the  meaning,  but 
that  while  the  unbaptized  adult,  who  truly  repents 
and  believes,  is  before  God,  spiritually  regenerate  and 
justified,  so  that,  were  he  to  die  in  that  state,  without 
any  sinful  neglect  of  Baptism,  he  avouM  enter  into 
full  communion  with  the  Israel  of  God,  in  the  Church 
on  high ;  yet  in  regard  to  the  fellowship  of  the  visi- 
ble Church  on  earth,  he  cannot  be  treated  as  regene- 
rate and  justified  till  he  has  received  the  sacramen- 
tal sign  and  seal,  and  made  the  visible  profession  of 


4-29 


regeneration  and  remission  of  sins.  To  him,  in  re- 
ceivingr  that  sicrn  and  seal  of  God's  favour  towards 
the  true  believer,  there  will  be  given  the  witnessing 
Spirit,  and  grace  to  deepen  his  repentance  and  con- 
firm his  faith,  so  as  to  make  the  visible  Sacrament 
fruitful,  in  a  sense  in  which  the  ungodly  cannot  par- 
take, though  to  them  the  Sacraments,  not  designed 
for  them,  yet  in  respect  to  their  nature  as  signs  and 
pledges,  ''lose  not  their  force  and  efficacy."' 

Now  let  us,  with  these  thoughts  in  remembrance, 
quote  a  little  more  of  the  Catechism  imder  review. 

"  Ma.  Do  we  not  obtain  forgiveness  of  sins  by  the  outward  wash- 
ing of  water  1 

"  Schol.  No.  For  only  Christ  hath  with  his  blood  washed  and 
clean  washed  away  the  spot  of  our  souls.  This  honour  therefore  it 
is  unlawful  to  give  to  the  outward  element.  But  the  Holy  Ghost, 
as  it  were,  sprinkling  our  consciences  with  that  holy  blood,  wiping 
away  all  the  spots  of  sin,  maketh  us  clean  before  God.  Of  ihis 
cleansing  of  our  sins  we  have  u  seal  and  pledge  in  the  Sacrament.'' 

Here  the  Sacrament  has  assigned  to  it  no  connec- 
tion with  the  remission  of  sins  but  as  ''a  seal  and 
pledge.''  Thus  it  is  that  by  seal  and  pledge  God,  in 
that  ordinance,  '*delivereth  unto  us  forgiveness  of 
sins  and  newness  of  life."  And  therefore,  in  answer 
to  the  question,  why  God  would  have  us  use  sacra- 
mental signs,  the  highest  efficacy  assigned  to  the 
Sacraments  is  expressed  in  the  following  extract : 

'*  By  this  mean  therefore  God  hath  provided  for  our  weakness, 
that  we  which  are  earthly  and  blind,  should  in  outward  elements  and 
figures,  as  it  were  in  certain  glasses,  behold  the  heavenly  graces, 
which  otherwise  we  were  not  able  to  see.  And  greatly  for  our  be- 
hoof it  is,  that  God's  promises  should  be  so  presented  to  our  senses, 
that  they  may  be  confirmed  to  our  minds  without  doubting. 

"The  Lord  did  furthermore  ordain  his  mysteries  to  this  end,  that 
they  should  be  certain  marks  and  tokens  of  our  prolession  :  whereby, 


430 


we  should,  as  it  were,  bear  witness  of  our  faith  before  men,  and 
should  plainly  show  that  we  are  partakers  of  God's  benefits  with  the 
rest  of  the  godly,  and  that  we  have  all  one  concord  and  consent  of 
religion  with  them,  and  should  openly  testify,  that  we  are  not 
ashamed  of  the  name  of  Christians,  and  to  be  called  the  disciples  of 
Christ. 

"To  lighten  and  give  bright  clearness  to  men's  minds  and  souls, 
and  to  make  their  consciences  quiet  and  in  security,  as  they  be  in- 
deed, so  ought  they  to  be  accounted  the  proper  work  of  the  Holy- 
Ghost  alone,  and  to  be  imputed  to  him,  and  this  praise  not  to  be 
transferred  to  any  other.  But  this  is  no  impediment  but  that  God 
may  give  to  his  mysteries  the  second  place  in  quieting  and  stablish- 
ing  our  minds  and  consciences,  but  yet  so  that  nothing  be  abated 
from  the  virtue  of  his  Spirit;  wherefore  we  must  determine  that 
the  outward  element  hath  neither  of  itself  nor  in  itself  inclosed  the 
force  and  efficacy  of  the  sacrament,  but  that  the  same  wholly  floweth 
from  the  Spirit  of  God,  as  out  of  a  spring  head,  and  is  by  the  divine 
mysteries  which  are  ordained  by  the  Lord  for  this  end,  conveyed 
unto  us. 

*«  Whereas  by  nature  we  are  the  children  of  wrath,  that  is,  stran- 
gers from  the  Church,  which  is  God's  household,  Baptism,  is  as  it 
were,  a  certain  entry  by  which  we  are  received  into  the  Church, 
whereof  we  also  receive  a  most  substantial  testimony,  that  we  are 
now  in  the  number  of  the  household,  and  also  of  the  children  of  God ; 
yea,  and  that  we  are  joined  and  grafted  into  the  body  of  Christ,  and 
become  his  members,  and  so  grow  into  one  body  with  him. 

"  As  the  uncleannesses  of  the  body  are  washed  away  with  water, 
so  the  spots  of  the  soul  are  washed  away  by  forgiveness  of  sins.  The 
beginning  of  regeneration,  that  is,  the  mortifying  of  our  nature,  is 
expressed  by  dipping  in  the  water  or  sprinkling  of  it.  Finally,  when 
we  by  and  by  rise  up  again  out  of  the  water,  under  which  we  be  for 
a  short  time,  the  new  life,  which  is  the  other  part,  and  the  end  of  our 
regeneration,  is  thereby  represented." — Ncii^elPs  Catechism. 

The  Catechism  above  quoted  appeared  in  the  time 
of  Archbishop  Whitgift,  under  the  approval  of  the 
Convocation,  and  the  sanction  of  the  Archbishops  and 
Bishops.  Whitgift,  in  particular,  (see  next  chap.) 
commended  it  as  of  eminent  value.    In  connection 


431 


with  it  therefore  we  will  give  the  opinions  of  that 
learned  divine,  expressed  in  circumstances  which  re- 
quired unusual  care  and  accuracy. 

The  following  passages  from  his  Defence  against 
Cartwright  contain  evidence  of  the  doctrine  of  the 
Sacraments,  as  held  in  the  Church  of  England,  in 
that  age,  the  more  conclusive  against  the  views  of 
Oxfordism,  because  the  Archbishop  was  defending 
the  Church  against  the  accusation  of  the  Puritans, 
that  she  made  too  much  of  the  outward  Sacraments. 
Had  it  been  the  doctrine  of  the  Church  as  then  held 
that  Baptism  does  ipso  facto  really  and  substantially 
regenerate  and  justify,  how  as  an  honest  man  could 
he  have  avoided  its  plain  declaration.  He  defines  the 
Sacraments  as  follows  : 

"  Sacraments  in  the  proper  signification  be  nnystical  signs  where- 
by he  keepeth  in  man's  memory  and  sometimes  reneweth  his  large 
benefits  bestowed  on  his  Church,  whereby  also  he  sealeth  or  assur- 
eth  his  promises  and  sheweth  outwardly,  and  as  it  werelayeth  before 
our  eyes,  those  things  to  behold,  which  inwardly  he  workelh  in  us.'^ 

What  does  he  work  in  us? 

"  Yea  by  them  he  strengtheneth  and  increaseth  our  faith,  by  the 
Holy  Ghost  working  in  our  hearts." 

Thus  a  true  and  living  faith  is  supposed  to  be  in 
our  hearts  before  Baptism. 

"And  to  be  short,  by  his  Sacraments,  he  separateth  us  from  all 
other  people,  consecrating  us  and  binding  us  to  him  only,  and  signi- 
fieth  what  he  requireth  of  us  to  be  done." — p.  618. 

Then  when  the  opponent  had  said  that  the  doc- 
trine of  the  Church  "  attributed  to  the  sign  that  which 
is  proper  to  the  work  of  God  in  the  blood  of  Christ;' 
Whitgift  being  now  called  to  a  full  declaration  of 
sacramental  doctrine,  answers : 

"You  know  very  well  that  we  teach  far  otherwise,  and  that  it  is 
a  certain  and  true  doctrine  of  all  auch  as  profess  the  gospel  that  the 


432 


outward  signs  of  the  Sacrament  do  not  contain  in  them  grace,  nei- 
ther yet  that  the  grace  of  God  is  of  necessity  tied  unto  them,  but  only 
that  they  be  seals  of  God's  promises,  notes  of  Christianity,  testimo- 
nies and  effectual  signs  of  the  grace  of  God  and  of  our  redemption  in 
Christ  Jesus,  by  the  which  the  Spirit  of  God  doth  invisibly  work  in 
us,  not  only  the  increase  of  faith,  but  the  confirmation  also." 

Here  is  no  new-creature  or  regeneration  of  faith  to 
make  it  alive^  but  only  its  increase. 

"You  have  learned  that  there  is  such  a  similitude  between  the 
signs  and  the  thing  signified  that  they  are  in  Scripture  usually  called 
by  the  names  of  those  things  whereof  they  be  Sacraments,  as  bread, 
the  body  of  Christ,  and  water,  regeneration — and  therefore  Christ 
saith,  '  Except  a  man  be  born  of  water,'  &c. 

"These  things  being  considered  it  is  no  superstitious  toy  but  a 
godly  and  true  saying  that  Christ  hath  sanctified  all  water  used  in 
Baptism  to  the  mystical  washing  away  of  sin,  not  ascribing  washing 
away  of  sin  to  external  element  any  otherwise  than  instrunDerrtally 
or  in  any  other  respect  than  for  the  similitude  that  Sacraments  have 
with  the  things  whereof  they  be  Sacraments  :  for  we  know  that  wick- 
ed men  may  receive  these  external  signs  and  yet  remain  the  mem- 
hers  of  Satan."— p.  738. 

Thus  does  Whito^ift  deUver  the  hio^hest  doctrine  of 
the  efficacy  of  the  Sacraments  in  his  day.  He  takes 
it  for  granted,  all  the  way,  that  the  adult  coming  to 
Baptism  has  the  faith  of  the  heart  or  a  justifying 
Faith.  He  ascribes  no  further  operation  to  the  grace 
of  Baptism  than  the  increase  and  confirmation  of 
such  faith.  Oxford  Divines  could  not  have  written 
so,  especially  in  answer  to  Puritans. 

The  book  of  Haddon,  against  Osorius,  in  the  age  of 
Elizabeth,  is  called  by  Strype  a  State  Book,  and  said 
by  him  to  have  been  next  to  Jewel's  Apology,  an 
authentic  vindication  of  the  Anglican  Reformation. 
See  next  Chapter  under  head  of  Fox  against  Osorius. 

"  You  say  our  divines  do  place  naked  images  instead  of  sacra- 
ments.   How  naked,  my  lord,  I  pray  you?    We  do  agree  with  St. 


433 


Augustine,  that  sacraments  are  signs  of  holy  things;  or  thus,  that 
sacraments  are  visible  signs  of  invisible,  grace.  I  trust  you  will  per- 
mit me  the  same  liberty  of  words,  which  you  use  to  take  to  yourself. 
We  do  grant,  that  we  are  by  baptism  regenerate  to  eternal  life;  we 
do  also  yield,  that  in  the  holy  communion  our  Lord  Jesus  is  truly 
received  of  the  faithful  in  Spirit  by  failh  ;  whereby  it  appeareth,  that 
our  divines  do  not  account  the  sacraments  as  bare  naked  signs,  but 
for  things  most  effectual,  most  holy,  and  things  most  necessarily  ap- 
pertaining to  our  comfort ;  they  be  sacred  mysteries  of  our  religion  ; 
they  be  assured  pledges  of  heavenly  grace  ;  and  yet  God  the  Father, 
which  made  us  of  clay,  is  not  tied  to  his  workmanship,  nor  bound  to 
\ns  creatures;  '  but  taketh  mercy  of  whom  he  will  have  mercy,  and 
forgiveth  our  sins  for  his  own  sake'  (Exod.  xxxii,  Rom.  ix),  not  for 
the  sacrament's  sake. 

"  Lastly,  '  Life  everlasting  is  the  gift  of  God  through  Jesus  Christ' 
(Rom.  vi),  not  through  operation  of  the  sacraments.  And  therefore 
we  do  refuse  and  detest  sucii  naked  and  falsely-forged  images,  as 
dreams  of  your  own  drowsy  brains,  and  use  the  true  sacraments  as 
most  sacred  things,  as  pledges  of  our  faith,  and  seals  of  our  salva- 
tion ;  and  yet  we  do  not  attribute  so  much  unto  them,  as  though  by 
the  means  of  them  the  grace  of  God  must  of  necessity  be  poured  out 
upon  us,  by  the  works  wrought^  as  through  conduit  pipes.  This 
impiety  we  turn  over  to  your  schoolmen,  the  very  first  springs  of 
this  poison.  'For  inheritance  is  given  of  faith  according  to  grace' 
(Rom.  iv). 

'*  The  sacraments  are  reverend  signs  of  God's  grace  unto  us,  are 
excellent  monuments  of  our  religion,  are  most  perfect  witnesses  of 
our  salvation.  If  you  cannot  be  satisfied  with  these  commendations 
of  the  sacraments,  heap  you  up  more  unto  them  at  your  choice,  we 
shall  be  well  pleased  withal,  so  that  you  bind  not  the  grace  of  God  to 
the  signs  of  very  necessity.  For  we  are  not  saved  by  the  receiving  of 
these  sacraments :  *  But  if  we  confess  with  our  mouth  our  Lord  Jesus 
Christ,  and  with  our  hearts  believe  that  God  raised  him  again  from 
death'  (Rom.  x),  this  confession  only  will  save  us." 

The  force  of  these  passages  from  Nowell's  Cate- 
chism and  the  contemporaneous  divines,  Whitgift 
and  Haddon,  is  greatly  illustrated  and  strengthened 
by  the  followincy  declaration  of  John  Frith,  one  of 

55 


434 


the  most  learned  Reformers  of  the  Marian  age.  They 
are  taken  from  his  Mirror  of  Baptism,  and  being  writ- 
ten expressly  against  the  sacramental  doctrines  of 
the  Romish  Church,  are  the  more  to  our  present  pur- 
pose. On  the  baptism  of  Cornelius  and  his  friends 
he  says : 

"  Here  you  may  see,  that  as  the  Spirit  of  God  lighteth  where  he 
will,  neither  is  he  bound  to  any  thing.  Yea,  and  this  exannple  doth 
well  declare  unto  us,  that  the  Sacraments  are  given  to  be  an  outward 
witness  unto  the  congregation  of  that  grace  which  is  given  before 
privately  unto  every  man.^'  "Baptism  to  the  adult  is  an  outward 
sign  of  his  invisible  faith  which  was  before  given  him  of  God."  "  it 
giveth  not  grace,  but  doth  testify  unto  the  congregation  that  he  which 
is  baptized  had  such  grace  given  him  before."  "  He  is  not  a  Chris- 
tian man  which  is  washed  with  water;  neither  is  that  baptism  (effec- 
tually) which  is  outward  in  the  flesh  ;  but  that  is  the  very  baptism 
which  God  alloweth,  to  be  baptized  spiritually  in  the  heart,  that  is  to 
subdue  and  weed  out  the  branches  of  sin,  &c.,  of  which  our  baptism 
is  but  a  sign.  And  there  are  many,  I  doubt  not,  which  are  thus 
spiritually  baptized,  although  their  bodies  touch  no  water,  as  there 
were  Gentiles  thus  spiritually  circumcised."  "Thus  is  St.  Paul  to 
be  understood  when  he  saith,  'All  ye  that  are  baptized  into  Christ, 
have  put  on  Christ ;'  that  is,  you  have  promised  to  die  with  Christ 
as  touching  your  sins  and  wordly  desires  past,  and  to  become  new 
men,  or  new  creatures  or  members  of  Christ.  This  have  we  all 
promised  unto  the  congregation,  and  it  is  represented  in  our  baptism; 
for  this  cause  it  is  called  oi  Paul  the  fountain  of  the  new  birth  and 
regeneration,  because  it  signifieth  that  we  will  indeed  renounce  and 
utterly  forsake  our  old  life — yea,  it  is  a  common  phrase  to  call  the 
Holy  Ghost  water  and  fire,  because  these  two  elements  express  so 
lively  his  purging  operation." 

"If thou  be  baptized  a  thousand  times  with  water,  and  have  no 
faith,  it  availeth  thee  no  more  towards  God,  than  it  doth  a  goose 
when  she  ducketh  herself  under  the  water  Therefore  if  thou  wilt 
obtain  the  profit  of  baptism,  thou  must  have  faith,  that  is  thou  must 
be  surely  persuaded  that  thou  art  new  born  again — and  that  thy  sins 
be  not  imputed  thee,  but  forgiven  through  the  blood  and  passion  of 


435 


Christ.    This  faith  h;ive  neither  the  devils,  neither  yet  the  wicked." 

"Besides  that  baptism  is  an  outward  figure  or  witness  unto  the 
congregation  of  the  invisible  promise  given  before  by  grace  unto 
every  private  man,  and  by  it  doth  the  congregation  receive  him  open- 
ly, to  be  counted  one  of  them,  which  was  frst  received  hyfaith^  or 
through  the  grace  of  the  promise;  also  it  putteth  in  remembrance, 
&:c. — otherwise  it  giveth  no  grace,  neither  hath  it  any  secret  virtue." 
— John  Frail's  Declaration  of  Baptism^  RusselVs  Ed.  pp.  285 — 
292. 

Precisely  according  to  the  doctrine  of  the  above 
citations  is  that  of  the  eminent  Reformer  and  holy 
Martyr,  Bishop  Hooper.  In  his  ''Confession  of 
Christian  Faith,"  he  speaks  of  "  three  principal  signs 
and  marks"  of  the  true  Church,  viz:  '"the  word,  the 
sacraments  and  discipline."  As  to  the  efficacy  of 
the  Wo?'d  and  Sacraments  he  puts  the  former  at  least 
upon  a  level  with  the  latter.  Of  the  Word,  meaning, 
he  says,  that  which  is  contained  within  the  canonical 
books  of  the  Old  and  New  Testaments,"  he  says: 

"By  the  which  word  we  are  made  clean,  and  thereby  do  receive 
the  selfsame  thing,  and  as  much  as  we  do  by  the  Sacraments;  that 
is  to  say,  Jesus  Christ  by  his  word,  which  is  the  word  of  faith  ;  who 
giveth  and  communicateth  himself  unto  us,  as  well  as  by  the  Sacra- 
nr*ents,  albeit  it  be  by  another  manner  and  fashion." 

Far  from  making  the  Traditions  of  the  Church  of 
concurrent  authority  with  the  word,  Hooper  says 
''I  believe  that  the  same  word  of  God  is  of  a  far 
greater  authority  than  the  Church^  Far  from  think- 
ing that  word  should  be  preached  with  reserve  and 
that  men  should  rather  be  referred  to  the  creeds  of 
the  Church,  than  to  it.    He  says: 

"  I  believe  that  the  reading  of  the  same  word  and  Gospel  ought 
not,  neither  can  it  be  prohibited  and  forbidden  from  any  manner  of 
person,  what  estate,  sort  or  condition  soever  the  same  be  of ;  but  it 
ought  to  be  common  unto  all  the  world.    And  therefore  Antichrist 


436 


and  his  members  do  exercise  great  and  cruel  tyrany  upon  the  faith- 
ful children  of  God,  in  that  they  take  from  them  and  utterly  do  for- 
bid them  to  read  the  same  word,  and  instead  thereof,  set  before  them 
dreams,  lies,  canons,  and  damnable  iraditions.^^ 

Then  of  the  Sacraments  which  he  has  already 
said  do  communicate  Christ  only  as  does  the  Word 
but    in  another  manner  and  fashion,^''  he  writes : 

"  I  believe  the  Holy  Sacraments  to  be  the  signs  of  the  reconcilia- 
tion and  great  atonement  made  between  God  and  us,  through  Jesus 
Christ.  They  are  seals  of  the  Lord's  promises,  and  are  outward 
and  visible  pledges  and  guages  of  the  inward  faith — not  void  and 
empty  signs  but  full:  that  is  to  say,  they  are  not  only  signs,  where- 
by something  is  signified,  but  also  they  are  such  signs  as  do  exhibit 
and  give  the  thing  that  they  signify  indeed. 

"  I  believe  that  Baptism  is  the  sign  of  the  new  league  and  friend- 
ship between  God  and  us,  made  by  Jesus  Christ ;  and  it  is  the  mark 
of  Christians,  now  in  the  time  of  the  Gospel,  as  in  time  past.  Cir- 
cumcision was  a  mark  unto  the  Jews  which  were  under  the  law.  Yea 
Baptism  is  an  outward  washing  done  with  water,  thereby  signifying 
an  inward  washing  of  the  Holy  Ghost  wrought  through  the  blood  of 
Christ.  I  believe  also  that  baptism  is  the  entry  of  the  Church,  a 
washing  unto  a  new  birth,  and  a  renewing  of  the  Holy  Ghost,  where- 
by we  do  forsake  ourselves,  the  devil,  the  flesh,  sin  and  the  world. 

Also  in  Hooper's  other  Tracts  entitled  A  Godly 
Confession  and  Protestation  of  the  Christian  Faith," 
and  dedicated  to  Edward  VI.,  we  read  : 

"Of  Baptism,  because  it  is  the  mark  of  our  Christian  Church,  this 
1  judge,  that  it  is  a  seal  and  confirmation  of  justice  or  of  our  accep- 
tation into  the  grace  of  God.  For  Christ's  innocency  and  justice, 
hy  faith''''  (not  by  Baptism)  "  is  ours  and  our  sins  and  injustice,  by  his 
obedience  are  his  whereof  baptism  is  the  sign  and  seal  and  confirma- 
tion. For  although  freely  by  the  grace  of  God  our  sins  are  forgiven, 
yet  the  same  is  declared  by  the  gospel,  received  hy  faith  and  sealed 
by  the  sacraments,^^^  &c. 


1  Hooper's  Confession  of  Christian  Faith — in  Fathers  of  the  English  Church, 
vol.  V.  pp.  459—463.  2  Fathers,  &c.  pp.  220,  221.    See  also  the  same 

doctrine  in  Tyndalo  in  Fathers  of  the  English  Church,  v.  p.  277. 


437 


The  Reader  will  compare  these  last  words,  "  re- 
ceived hij  faith  and  sealed  hij  the  Sacraments with 
those  of  Mr.  Newman,  adopted  by  Dr.  Pusey,  in 
conformity  with  Rome.  Justification  comes  through 
the  Sacraments,  is  received  by  faith."  What  then 
Bishop  Hooper  considers  to  be  only  signed,  sealed 
and  confirmed  by  the  Sacraments,  Oxford  Divinity 
makes  to  come  through  the  Sacraments  and  in  no 
other  way.  In  Bishop  Hooper's  "Declaration  of 
Christ,"  we  read  again  : 

*«  Although  Baptism  be  a  Sacrament  to  be  received  and  honour- 
ably used  of  all  men,  yet  it  sanctifieth  no  man.  And  such  as  at- 
tribute the  remission  of  sins  unto  the  external  sign  do  offend.  This 
new  life  comelh  not  until  such  time  as  Christ  be  known  and  received. 
Now  to  put  on  Christ  is  to  live  a  new  life.  Such  as  be  baptized 
must  remember  that  faith  and  repentance  precede  this  external  sign, 
and  in  Christ,  the  purgation  was  inwardly  obtained,  before  the  ex- 
ternal sign  was  given.  So  that  there  are  two  kinds  of  baptism  and 
both  necessary.  The  one  interior  which  is  the  cleansing  of  the 
heart,  the  drawing  of  the  Father,  the  operation  of  the  Holy  Ghost ; 
and  this  baptism  is  in  man,  when  he  believeth  and  trusteth  that 
Christ  is  the  only  actor  of  his  salvation.^^ 

No  words  could  more  plainly  express  that  the  bap- 
tism of  the  Holy  Ghost,  w^here  there  is  the  repent- 
ance and  faith  required  of  the  catechumen,  precedes 
the  baptism  of  water.  Of  the  latter,  says  Hooper,  im- 
mediately after:  Though  it  have  no  power  to  purge 
from  sin,  yet  it  confirmeth  the  purgation  of  sin,  and 
the  act  of  itself  pleaseth  God,  because  the  receivers 
thereof  obey  the  will  of  his  commandment."  Then, 
to  illustrate  how  truly  one  who  repents  and  believes 
before  Baptism  is  a  child  of  God,  born  of  the  spirit 
and  justified  in  Christ,  and  how^  the  addition  of  the 
sacramental  regeneration  and  remission  is  only  the 
addition  of  the  symbol,  the  giving  of  the  ring  to  the 


438 


Abbot  or  the  staff  to  the  Magistrate,  as  St.  Bernard 
says,  Hooper  proceeds : 

"  Like  as  the  King's  Majesty  that  now  is,  immediately  after  the 
death  of  his  father,  was  the  true  and  legitimate  heir  of  England,  and 
received  his  Coronation,  not  to  make'  himself  thereby  king,  hut  to 
manifest  that  the  kingdom  appertained  unto  him  before.  He  took 
the  crown  to  confirm  his  right  and  title.  Though  this  ceremony 
confirm  and  manifest  a  king  in  his  kingdom,  yet  it  maketh  not  a 
King.  The  babe  in  the  cradle  hath  as  good  a  right  and  claim,  and 
is  as  true  a  king  in'his  cradle  uncrowned,  as  his  father  was,  though 
he  reigned  a  crowned  king  forty  years.  So  it  is  in  the  Church  of 
Christ ;  man  is  made  the  brother  of  Christ  and  heir  of  eternal  life  by 
God's  only  mercy,  received  by  faith,  before  he  receive  any  cere- 
mony to  confrm  and  manifest  openly  his  right  and  title.  Thus  as- 
sured of  God  and  cleansed  from  sin  in  Christ,  he  hath  the  livery  of 
God  given  unto  him.  Baptism,  the  which  no  Christian  should  neglect ; 
and  yet  not  attribute  his  sanctification  unto  the  external  sign."^ 

As  to  the  identity  of  the  Sacraments  of  the  Old  and 
New  Testaments,  as  to  all  spiritual  efficacy,  Bishop 
Hooper  says  : 

As  for  those  that  say  circumcision  and  baptism  be  like,  and  yet 
attribute  the  remission  of  original  sin  to  baptism,  which  was  never 
given  to  circumcision,  they  not  only  destroy  the  similitude  and 
equality  that  should  be  between  them,  but  also  take  from  Christ  re- 
mission of  sin  and  translate  it  unto  the  water  and  element  of  bap- 
tism."^ "I  believe  that  the  holy  fathers,  Patriarchs,  Prophets,  and 
all  the  faithful  and  good  people  that  are  gone  before  us,  and  have 
died  in  the  faith,  through  the  word  and  faith,  saw  Him  beforehand, 
which  was  to  come,  and  received  as  much  and  the  same  thing  that 
we  receive  by  the  sacraments.  For  they  were  of  the  self  same 
Church,  faith,  and  law  that  we  be  of.  They  were  as  well  Chris- 
tians as  we,  and  used  the  same  sacraments  in  figure,  that  we  use  in 
truth."-^ 

The  necessary  pi'ecedence  of  spiritual  regeneration, 


»  Fathers  of  the  English  Church,  vol.  v.  pp.  1 68-170.  2  Confession 

of  Faith,  Fathers  of  the  English  Church,  vol.  v.  p.  222.  3  lb.  p.  467. 


439 


before  Baptism,  where  the  required  preparation  in 
the  adult  is  complied  with,  is  thus  stated  by  Dr. 
Hammond,  in  his  Practical  Catechism,  one  of  the 
writers  whom  Oxford  Divines  are  specially  fond  of 
quoting.  Of  Repentance,  required  before  Baptism, 
he  says  it  is  "  A  change  of  mind  or  a  conversion  from 
sin  to  God.  Not  some  one  bare  act  of  change,  but 
a  lasting  durable  state  of  new  life,  which  I  told  you 
was  called  also  regeneration.''^  Then  when  the 
scholar  asks :  But  is  not  regeneration  an  act  of 
new  birth?"  he  answers: 

*'  Not  only  that,  but  it  is  also  the  state  of  new  life,  (called  the  new 
creature,)  living  a  godly  life,  &c.  For  the  scripture  phrase,  to  be 
regenerate,  or  born  again,  or  fronn  above,  is  all  one  with  being  a 
child  of  God."^ 

Thus  does  this  great  writer  not  only  discard  the 
distinction  so  insisted  on  by  the  advocates  of  baptismal 
regeneration  in  the  most  literal  sense,  between  re- 
generation and  renovation,  but  expressly  pronounces 
that  spiritual  regeneration,  or  new  birth,  does  go 
before  Baptism,  in  every  case  in  which  there  is  re- 
pentance before  Baptism. 

We  have  completed  what  we  have  now  to  say 
on  baptismal  justification.  We  have  showed  that 
the  Oxford  doctrine  of  the  opus  operatum,  the  abso- 
lute tying  of  Justification  to  Baptism,  so  that  where 
the  latter  is  not,  the  other  cannot  be,  and  where  Bap- 
tism is,  there  Justification  must  be,  except  there  be 
the  impediment  of  downright  hypocrisy  or  infidelity, 
while  it  is  precisely  the  doctrine  of  Rome,  is  not  the 
doctrine  of  the  Anglican  Church,  whose  language  in 
her  standard  documents,  as  well  as  that  of  her  stand- 


•  Hammond's  Works,  vol.  1,  p.  19. 


440 


ard  writers  not  only  may  be  otherwise  interpreted, 
but  must  be  or  they  do  seriously  contradict  them- 
selves. 

It  has  appeared  also  that  not  only  is  there  in  every 
adult  prepared  for  Baptism,  the  reality  of  spiritual 
regeneration  and  remission  of  sins;  but  that  there 
may  be,  in  Baptism,  the  reality  of  sacramental  re- 
generation and  remission  without  the  spiritual. 

In  having  showed  this,  concerning  adult  Baptism, 
it  has  necessarily  been  showed  concerning  infant 
Baptism,  since  there  is  not  a  line  in  the  Scriptures 
nor  in  the  articles  or  other  standard  documents  of 
the  Church,  in  regard  to  the  spiritual  efficacy  of 
the  one  which  does  not  alike  refer  to  the  other. 
And  indeed  the  true  way  to  get  at  the  nature  and 
benefits  of  infant  Baptism  is  to  begin  with  that  of 
adults,  and  reason  through  the  latter  to  the  former, 
since  it  is  to  the  class  of  adult  Baptism  that  all  the 
cases  specifically  mentioned  in  the  Scriptures  belong. 
The  language  of  the  New  Testament  was  construct- 
ed with  reference  to  adult  Baptism,  which  was  al- 
most exclusively  witnessed  in  the  first  conversions  to 
Christianity.  To  adult  Baptism,  it  would  have  to  be 
again  applied,  were  the  Gospel  to  be  now  success- 
fully preached  to  all  nations. 

Were  we  writing  a  full  account  of  Baptism  we 
should  not  cease  till  we  had  gone  far  into  the  great 
value  of  Infant  Baptism  to  Families,  to  the  Church,  and 
to  the  children  individually ;  we  should  speak  strong- 
ly of  the  great  need  of  a  much  higher  and  more 
solemn  sense  of  the  privileges  and  duties  of  Parents, 
in  regard  to  their  children  in  this  respect ;  we  should 
urge  more  faith  in  God's  blessing  in  the  Baptism  of 


441 


onr  children,  and  as  a  consequence  of  it,  after  their 
Baptism,  if  we  duly  wait  upon  him  therefor.  We 
should  preach  that  the  remedy  of  the  present  lament- 
able deficiency  in  duty  would  be,  not  in  a  higher  sense 
of  the  efficacy  of  the  Sacrament  itself,  but  of  its  obli- 
gation and  privilege  as  an  appointed  and  precious 
divine  mode  of  bringing  little  children  to  Christ,  put- 
ting them  into  his  arms,  supplicating  his  blessing 
upon  them,  consecrating  them  to  his  service,  express- 
ing our  determination  to  seek  for  them  first  the  King- 
dom of  God  and  his  righteousness,  and  signing  and 
sealing  their  membership  in  the  Commonw^ealth  of 
Israel. 

And  all  this,  w^e  should  conclude  with  a  solemn 
caution  against  such  an  idolatry  of  the  Sacrament  of 
Baptism,  such  a  resting  upon  the  outward  seal,  such 
identification  of  the  spiritual  grace  wilh  its  visible 
sign,  such  a  losing  of  the  real  nature  of  spiritual 
Regeneration  in  our  zeal  the  honour  of  its  type  and 
shadow,  as  is  shown  in  Oxford  Divinity,  to  the  great 
peril  of  immortal  souls,  and  the  certainty,  should  that 
system  be  carried  out,  of  substituting  a  religion  of 
mere  ritual,  for  that  which  makes  us  ''worship  God 
ill  the  Spirit  and  rejoice  in  Christ  Jesus  and  put  no 
confidence  in  the  flesh ^ 

In  concluding  this  chapter  we  would  direct  the  at- 
tention of  the  reader  to  the  abridgment  of  some  parts 
of  the  admirable  sermon  of  the  well  known  Bishop 
Hopkins,  of  Raphoe,  on  the  Doctrine  of  Baptism,  con- 
tained in  the  annexed  note.^ 

*  BISHOP  HOPKINS   ON  THK  DOCTRINE  OF  BAPTISM. 

"To  he  sanctified,  imports,  in  the  proper  signification  of  it,  no  other  than  lu 
be  appointed,  separated,  or  dedicated  to  God. 
.06 


442 


**  There  are  two  ways  of  dedication  unto  God,  whereby  his  title  takes  place, 
and  what  is  so  devoted  becomes  his. 

"  The  one  external,  by  men,  as  in  the  instances  before  cited ;  whereby  there 
was  no  change  at  all  wrought  in  the  nature  of  the  thing  thus  dedicated,  but 
only  a  change  in  the  relation  and  propriety  of  it. 

"  The  other  dedication  is  internal,  and  wrought  by  God  himself.  And  thus 
he  is  said  to  separate  or  dedicate  persons  to  himself,  when  by  the  effectual  ope- 
ration of  the  Holy  Ghost  upon  them,  he  endows  them  with  those  habits  which 
enable  them  to  do  him  service. 

*'  As  there  is  this  twofold  dedication  or  separation,  so  there  is  also  a  twofold 
sanctification. 

"  There  is  an  external,  relative,  or  ecclesiastical  sanctification,  which  is  no- 
thing else,  but  the  devoting  or  giving  up  a  thing  or  person  unto  God,  by  those 
who  have  a  power  so  to  do. 

"  There  is  an  internal,  real,  and  spiritual  sanctification  ;  and  in  this  sense,  a 
man  is  said  to  be  sanctified  when  the  Holy  Ghost  doth  infuse  into  his  soul  the 
habits  of  divine  grace,  and  maketh  him  partaker  of  the  divine  nature,  whereby 
he  is  inwardly  qualified  to  glorify  God  in  a  holy  life. 

"  In  applying  this  distinction  to  Baptism,  and  to  show  you  how  it  is  that 
Baptism  doth  sanctify,  I  shall  lay  down  these  following  propositions. 

1.  "  Baptism  is  the  immediate  means  of  our  external  and  relative  sanctifi- 
cation unto  Gad. 

*'  By  this  Holy  Sacrament,  all  that  are  partakers  of  it  are  dedicated  and  sepa- 
rated unto  him. 

**  There  are,  if  I  may  so  express  it,  but  two  regiments  of  men ;  the  one  is  of 
the  World,  the  other  is  of  the  Church.  And,  in  one  of  these,  all  mankind  are 
listed  and  do  march. 

"This  Church  of  Christ  may  be  considered,  either  as  visible  or  invisible. 
The  visible  Church  of  Christ  on  earth,  is  a  sort  of  people  who  profess  the  name 
of  Christ  and  own  his  doctrine ;  joining  together  in  a  holy  Society  and  commu- 
nion of  worship,  where  it  can  be  enjoyed.  The  invisible  Church  of  Christ  on 
earth,  is  a  number  of  true  believers,  who  have  internal  and  invisible  communion 
with  Jesus  Christ,  by  their  faith  and  his  spirit.  The  Visible  Church  is  of  a 
much  larger  extent  than  the  Invisible  ;  for  it  comprehends  hypocrites  and  too 
many  ungodly  persons ;  yea,  all  those  who  have  given  up  their  names  unto 
Christ,  and  make  a  visible  profession  of  his  doctrine,  though  by  their  lives  and 
practices  they  deny  it.  And  therefore  the  Church,  which  is  frequently  in  Scrip- 
ture called  the  Kingdom  of  Heaven,  is  compared  to  a  net  cast  into  the  sea, 
gathering  of  every  kind  of  fish,  both  good  and  bad  ;  Mat.  xiii,  47,  both  sorts 
are  embraced  in  the  bosom  of  this  net,  and  no  separation  can  ordinarily  be  made, 
until  it  be  drawn  ashore  at  the  Day  of  Judgment ;  and  then  the  good  shall  be 
gathered  into  vessels,  and  the  bad  cast  away,  as  it  is  there  expressed. 

"  The  World,  out  of  which  this  Church  of  Christ  is  taken,  is  the  whole  com- 
pany of  those  persons  who  belong  unto  the  Devil,  the  God  of  this  World. 


443 


*'  All  that  are  of  the  Visible  Church  of  Christ  Jesus,  are  taken  out  of  ^e 
World,  so  that  it  may  truly  be  said  of  them,  that  they  are  not  of  the  World. 

"Hence  it  follows,  that  all  those  who  are  members  of  the  Visible  Church, 
may  truly  be  called  Saints,  and  members  of  Christ,  and  the  children  and  people 
of  God;  because,  by  being  taken  into  the  Church,  they  are  taken  out  of  the 
World ;  and  so  become  God's  portion,  and  the  lot  of  his  inheritance,  Deut.  32. 
9.  The  Lord' s  portion  is  his  people;  Jacob  is  the  lot  of  his  inheritance.  Not 
that  they  are  all  so  in  an  internal,  spiritual,  and  saving  manner ;  would  to  God 
they  were  !  and  that  all  that  are  of  Israel  were  of  Israel  !  as  the  Apostle  speaks, 
Rom.  9.  6,  but  only,  because,  though  many  of  them  are  hypocrites,  and  many 
more  profane  ;  yet  they  may  have  these  titles  from  the  external  relation  where- 
in they  now  stand  to  Christ,  by  making  profession  of  his  name  and  religion. 

"I  look  upon  the  Christian  Church,  now  under  the  times  of  the  Gospel,  to 
be  in  the  same  capacity,  and  to  stand  in  the  same  relation  towards  God  as  the 
Jewish  Church  did  under  the  Law.  But,  clear  it  is,  that  in  the  most  corrupt 
state  of  the  Jewish  Church,  God  still  owned  them  for  his  people;  Jer.  4.  22. 
*  My  people  is  foolish  y'  *  they  have  not  knoron  me  j'  and  Isaiah  1.  3,  4.  "  My 
peopie  doth  not  consider.''  '  Ah  !  sinful  nation,  a  people  laden  xoith  iniquities, 
a  seed  of  evil  doers  /'  And  yet,  notwithstanding  these  great  complaints  of 
their  universal  wickedness,  as  you  find  throughout  that  whole  chapter,  yet  are 
they  God's  people  ;  and  yet  *  a  people  laden  with  iniquity.^  My  children  ;  and 
yet  *  a  seed  of  evil  doers,  children  that  are  corrupters.^ 

"Yea,  and  in  the  New  Testament  we  find  sanctification  and  holiness  as- 
cribed to  those  who  were  never  otherwise  Sanctified  than  by  their  external 
separation  from  the  world,  and  profession  of  the  doctrine  of  Christ.  St.  Paul 
directs  his  Epistles  to  the  whole  Church  of  Corinth,  as  to  Saints;  '  To  them 
that  are  sanctified  in  Christ  Jesus,  and  called  to  be  Sai7its 1  Cor.  1.  2,  and 
it  was  the  common  beginning  of  all  his  Epistles.  Yet  were  there  some  in  this 
Church  of  Corinth,  that  had  not  the  knowledge  of  God,  that  denied  the  resur- 
rection, and  were  grossly  guilty  of  foul  and  flagitious  crimes ;  as  he  himself 
witncsseth  against  them,  and  for  which  he  sharply  reproves  them  in  that  Epis  - 
tie;  Saints  they  are  called,  only  because  they  were  visible  Church  members, 
and  made  a  profession  of  the  Christian  faith  and  name. 

"  Again,  to  be  members  of  the  Church  Visible  is  sufficient  to  style  men  mem- 
bers of  Christ.  So  our  Saviour  himself  speaks  of  some  branches  in  him  that 
bear  not  fruit.  John  15.  2,  and  so  Rom.  11.  17,  the  branches  of  the  true  olive 
are  said  to  have  been  broken  off,  and  others  engrafted  in  their  stead.  Certainly 
this  Vine,  and  this  Olive,  is  Christ;  and  these  barren,  and  therefore  broken 
branches,  are  members  of  his  Body  ;  not  indeed  living  members  united  unto  him 
by  the  band  of  a  saving  faith,  whereby  they  might  draw  sap  and  nourishment 
from  him,  for  such  shall  never  be  broken  off,  nor  burnt ;  but  yet  they  are  in 
Christ,  and  belong  unto  Christ,  as  his  members  by  an  ecclesiastical  or  political 
incision,  as  they  are  parts  and  members  of  the  Visible  Church. 

An  ]  thus  I  suppose,  I  have  made  it  sufficiently  clear  unto  you,  that  all  who 


444 


are  taken  out  of  the  World  into  the  Visible  Church  of  Christ,  may,  according  to 
^  phrase  and  e3?pressions  of  Scripture,  be  called  Saints,  the  Children  and 
People  of  God,  and  members  of  Christ. 

"But,  to  bring  this  home  to  our  present  subject  of  Baptism;  from  all  this  it 
evidently  follows,  that  those  who  are  baptized,  may,  in  this  ecclesiastical  and 
relative  sense,  be  truly  called  Saints,  the  Children  of  God,  and  Members  of 
Christ ;  and  thereupon,  '  Inheritors  of  the  Kingdom  of  Heaven.' 

*•  Doubtless,  so  far  forth  Baptism  is  a  means  of  Sanctification,  as  it  is  the 
solemn  admission  of  persons  into  the  Visible  Church;  as  it  separates  them  from 
the  World,  and  from  all  false  religions  in  it,  and  brings  them  out  of  the  Visible 
kingdom  of  the  Devil  into  the  Visible  kingdom  of  Jesus  Christ.  For,  if  all,  that 
are  admitted  into  the  Visible  Church,  are  thereby,  as  I  have  proved  to  you,  dig- 
nified with  the  title  of  Saints  and  the  Children  of  God  ;  then  by  Baptism,  which 
is  the  solemn  way  of  admitting  them  into  the  Church,  they  may,  with  very 
good  reason,  be  said  to  be  made  Saints,  the  Children  of  God,  and  Members  of 
Christ.  But  this  is  only  a  relative  Sanctity,  not  a  real;  and  many  such  Saints 
and  Sanctified  men  there  are,  who  shall  never  enter  into  heaven,  but  by  their 
wicked  lives,  forfeit  and  lose  that  blessed  inheritance  to  which  they  are  called. 
Many  there  are  who  are  Saints,  by  their  separation  from  Paganism  and  Judaism 
into  fellowship  with  the  Visible  Church  ;  but  they  are  not  Saints  by  their  sepa- 
ration from  wicked  and  ungodly  men  into  a  Spiritual  fellowship  with  Christ. 
And  yet,  to  such  Saints  as  these,  all  the  Ordinances  of  the  Church  are  due, 
till,  for  their  notorious  wickedness,  they  be  cut  off  from  that  body,  by  the  due 
execution  of  the  Sentence  of  ex-communication.  Such  a  Baptismal  Regenera- 
tion as  this  is,  must  needs  be  acknowledged  by  all,  that  will  not  wilfully  shut 
their  eyes  against  the  clear  evidence  of  Scripture ;  from  which  I  have  before 
brought  plentiful  proofs  to  confirm  it.  Yet  let  me  add  one  more,  and  that  shall 
be.  Gal.  iii.  26,  27.  '  Te  are  all  the  children  of  God  by  faith  in  Christ  Jesus* 
i.  e.  by  believing  and  professing  his  doctrine;  'For  as  many  of  yon,  (saith  the 
Apostle,)  as  have  been  baptized  into  Christ,^  i.  e.  baptized  into  the  religion  of 
Christ,  and  in  his  name,  '  have  put  on  Christ,'  i.  e.  have  professed  him,  and 
thereby  put  upon  yourselves  his  name,  being  called  Christians  ;  and  this  putting 
on  of  Christ  in  Bapt'sm,  the  Apostle  makes  a  ground  to  assert  them  to  be  all 
the  children  of  God.  But  still  it  must  be  remembered,  that  this  Sanctification, 
Regeneration,  and  adoption,  conferred  upon  us  at  our  admission  iuto  the  Visi- 
ble Church,  is  external  and  ecclesiastical. 

"  And  thus  much  for  the  First  Position,  that  Baptism  is  a  means  of  our  Exter- 
nal and  Relative  Sanctification  unto  God  ;  because,  by  it,  we  are  separated  from 
the  Visible  Kingdom  of  the  Devil,  and  brought  into  the  Visible  Kingdom  of 
Christ,  and  are  devoted  by  vow  and  covenant  unto  the  service  of  God. 

2.  "  Another  Position  is  this.  That  Baptism  is  not  so  the  means  of  an  internal 
and  real  Sanctification,  as  if  all,  to  -whom  it  is  administered,  were  thereby 
spiritually  reneived,  and  made  partakers  of  the  Holy  Ghost  in  his  Having;- 
graces. 


445 


"  Though  an  external  ecclesiastical  Sanctification  be  effected  by  Baptism,  ex 
o/?erff  o/)(?rofo,  by  the  mere  administration  of  that  Holy  Sacrament;  yet  so  is 
not  an  internal  and  habitual  Sanctification  ;  and  that,  whether  we  respect  adult 
Persons  or  Infants. 

"  The  Baptismal  Regeneration  of  infants  is  external  and  ecclesiastical. 
They  are  regenerated,  as  they  are  incorporated  into  the  Church  of  Christ;  for 
this  is  called  Regeneration,  Mat.  xix.  28.  '  Ye,  -which  have  foUo-wed  me  in  the 

Regeneraton  shall  sit  upon  tivelve  thrones,  Jiu!gi?ig  the  txvelve 

tribes  of  Israel,^  where,  though  some  read  the  words  otherwise,  in  the  Regene- 
ration ye  shall  sit  upon  tivelve  thrones,  meaning  thereby  the  Day  of  Judgment 
and  the  last  renewing  of  all  things ;  yet  I  see  no  enforcing  necessity  to  alter  the 
common  and  usual  reading.  Ye,  -which  have  fQllo-wed  me  in  the  Regeneration, 
i.  e.  in  planting  my  Church,  which  is  the  renewing  of  the  World.  And,  there- 
fore the  Apostle,  2  Cor.  v.  17,  saying,  that  '  old  things  are  passed  a-way  

all  things  are  become  new,'  is  thought  to  allude  unto  the  Prophet,  Isaiah,  Ixv, 
17,  ^Behold  I  create  new  heavens  and  a  ne-w  earth  ;  and  the  former  shall  not 
be  remembered.''  And  this  state  of  the  Gospel  was  by  the  Jews,  frequently  call- 
ed '  The  world  to  come,'  and  so  likewise  it  is  called  by  the  Apostle,  Heb.  ii.  5. 
*  Unto  the  angels  hath  he  7iot  put  in  subjection  the  -world  to  come  -whereof  -we 
speak.''  To  be  admitted,  therefore,  by  Baptism  into  the  Church  of  Christ,  is  to 
be  admitted  into  the  State  of  Regeneration,  or  the  renewing  of  all  things,  called 
therefore  '  the  Washing  of  Regeneration,'  Tit.  iii.  5. 

"  But  how  then  are  infants  said,  in  Baptism,  to  be  regenerated  by  the  Holy 
Spirit,  if  he  doth  not  inwardly  sanctify  them  in  and  by  that  ordinance  1 

*'  I  answer :  Because  the  whole  economy  and  dispensation  of  the  Kingdom 
of  Christ  is  managed  by  the  Spirit  of  Christ;  so  that  those  who  are  internally 
Sanctified  are  regenerated  by  his  effectual  operation ;  and  those  who  are  only 
externally  Sanctified,  are  regenerated  by  his  public  institution.  Infants,  there- 
fore, are  in  Baptism  regenerated  by  the  Holy  Ghost,  because  the  Holy  Spirit  of 
God  appoints  this  ordinance  to  receive  them  into  the  Visible  Church,  which  is 
the  regenerate  part  and  state  of  the  world. 

"  That  is  the  second  Position,  that  Baptism  is  not  so  the  means  of  Sanctifica- 
tion, that  all,  to  whom  it  is  administered,  must  thereby  be  made  partakers  of 
the  Holy  Ghost  in  his  Saving  Graces. 

3.  "  It  is  not  so  the  means  of  Sanctification,  as  if  none  could  be  internally 
and  really  sanctified,  -who  are  neccssarrily  deprived  of  that  holy  ordinance. 

"Yea,  indeed,  all  that  are  converted  from  other  religions  unto  Christianity, 
must  first  believe  and  make  profession  of  that  faith  before  they  can  be  admitted 
unto  the  Sacrament  of  Baptism ;  and  doubtless,  many  thousands  were  by  the 
Apostles  converted,  not  only  to  the  Christian  profession,  but  to  a  Christian  and 
holy  life,  before  they  were  baptized. 

"  We  well  know,  that  in  the  primitive  times,  very  many  did  delay  their  Bap- 
tism till  their  declining  age,  out  of  an  erroneous  opinion,  that  all  voluntary  sins 
after  Baptism  were  unpardonable  ;  and  yet  it  would  be  very  uncharitable  to 


446 


judge,  that  none  of  these  were  sanctified  and  inwardly  renewed  by  the  Holy 
Ghost. 

"  Baptism,  then,  is  not  of  such  absolute  necessity  as  a  means,  that  none  can 
be  saved  without  it ;  neither  doth  our  Saviour  so  assert  it.  For  we  must  distin- 
guish, between  being  inevitably  deprived  of  the  opportunity  of  Baptism,  and  a 
wilful  contempt  of  it.  And  of  this  latter,  must  the  Words  of  Christ  be  under- 
stood. He  that  contemns  being  born  again  of  Baptism,  and  out  of  that  con- 
tempt finally  neglects  it,  shall  never  enter  into  the  Kingdom  of  God  ;  but,  for 
others,  who  are  necessarily  deprived  of  that  ordinance,  the  want  of  it  shall  not 
in  the  least  prejudice  their  salvation  ;  for  it  is  a  stated  rule.  Non  absentia,  scd 
contemptus  sacramentorum,  reum  facit. 

4.  "  The  last  Position  is  this,  that  Baptism  is  an  ordijiary  meajis  appointed 
by  Christ  for  the  real  and  effectual  sanctiji  cation  of  his  Church. 

"  For  this  is  the  great  end  of  all  Gospel  Ordinances,  that,  through  them,  might 
be  conveyed  that  grace  which  might  purify  the  heart  and  cleanse  the  life.  And 
though  I  do  not  affirm,  that  Baptism  doth  effect  this  in  all  to  whom  it  is  rightly 
applied;  yet  this  I  do  affirm  and  maintain,  that  there  is  no  reason  to  doubt  the 
salvation  of  any,  who,  by  this  holy  ordinance,  are  consecrated  unto  God,  until, 
by  their  actual  and  wilful  sinning,  they  thrust  away  from  them  these  benefits 
which  God  intends  them  by  if.  And,  indeed,  whoso  doth  but  seriously  con- 
sider the  vows  that  are  upon  him,  and  the  solemn  engagements  which  he  hath 
made  to  be  the  Lord's,  will  find  a  pressing  force  upon  his  soul,  unless  he  be  lost 
to  all  modesty  and  ingenuity  ;  urging  him  really  to  fulfil  what  he  hath  so  justly 
and  so  sacredly  promised  ;  no  argument  can  be  more  prevalent  to  enforce  a 
holy  life  than  when  the  Spirit  of  God  shall  bring  home  to  our  consideration  the 
oath  that  we  have  taken,  to  be  God's,  and  to  oppose  all  the  enemies  that  oppose 
his  glory  and  our  salvation  ;  when  we  shall  be  reminded  that,  so  long  as  we 
continue  in  a  state  of  sin,  we  live  in  perjury,  having  given  our  most  serious 
promise  to  God,  to  yield  obedience  to  his  will  and  laws,  and  to  live  as  becomes 
his  servants  and  soldiers." — Bishop  Hopkins  on  the  Doctrine  of  the  Sacraments. 


CHAPTER  XI. 


THE  DOCTRINE  OF  OXFORD  DIVINITY  AS  TO  THE  RIGHTEOUSNESS 
OF  JUSTIFICATION  AND  THE  OFFICE  OF  FAITH,  COMPARED  WITH 
THAT  OF  STANDARD  DIVINES  OF  THE  ANGLICAN  CHURCH. 

Majorities  in  such  a  question  of  no  avail — Laud's  testimony — Divines  of  the 
17th  Century  especially  relied  on  by  the  Oxford  writers. — The  same  mainly 
employed  in  this  Chapter — Testimony  of  Oxford  writers  to  the  eminent  au- 
thority of  Hooker — His  views  acknowledged  to  be  in  entire  opposition  to 
those  of  this  divinity  on  Justification — Force  of  the  confession — Singular  at- 
tempt to  escape  its  force — Citations  from  Hooker — Tyndale — Barnes — Cran 
mer — Bishop  Hooper — Bishop  Latimer — Edward  VL  Catechism — Confes- 
sion of  Martyrs  and  Divines  in  Prison — Nowell's  Catechism — Haddon  and 
Fox  against  Osorius — Perkins — Bishop  Downame — Bishop  Andrews — 
Mede — Bishop  Hall — Bishop  Nicholson — Archbishop  Usher — Bishop  Hop- 
kins— Bishop  Beveridge. 

Our  Oxford  writers,  in  appealing  to  tlie  doctrines  of 
the  Anglican  Divines,  as  agreeing  with  their  own, 
speak  of  majorities.  As  for  example  :  "  The  Angli- 
can doctrine  (of  justification)  or  that  which  we  con- 
ceive to  have  been  the  teaching  of  a  majority  of  our 
Church."^  Their  own  favourite,  Archbishop  Laud, 
would  have  taught  them  how  little  is  gained  in  fa- 
vour of  a  doctrine  when  it  has  gained  a  majority. 
Fisher  the  Jesuit  pleaded  majority.  Laud  answered: 
"  As  for  the  number  and  worth  of  men,  they  are  no 
necessary  concluders  for  truth.  Not  number  ;  for  who 
would  be  judged  by  the  many?  The  time  was  when 
the  Arians  were  too  many  for  the  orthodox."^ 

The  time  may  be  when  there  shall  hardly  be 
''found  faith  in  the  earth."    The  majority  will  be 


'  Pusey's  Letter,  p.  46. 


2  Conference  with  Fisher,  p.  302. 


448 


fearfully  against  it.  But  a  faithful  remnant  will 
stand  fast  in  their  noble  minority.  Who  does  not 
know  that  one  such  name  as  that  of  Hooker  is  worth 
ten  thousand  of  lesser  note  in  proof  of  the  doctrines 
of  the  Church  in  his  day,  and  as  handed  down  from 
the  Reformers?  Who  knows  not  that  in  the  ques- 
tion, what  is  the  doctrine  of  the  Articles  and  Homi- 
lies of  the  Anglican  Church,  one  plain  testimony 
from  Cranmer  and  his  colleagues,  by  whom  those 
instruments  were  constructed  is  worth  all  that  could 
be  collected  from  the  writings  of  all  the  Non  Jurors 
of  1688,  and  of  those  their  contemporaries  whom  our 
Oxford  Divines  are  so  fond  of  quoting  ? 

In  citing  the  Ancient  Anglican  Divines  we  shall 
proceed  on  the  principle  of  selection  furnished  in 
Tract,  No.  71,  p.  29,  where  it  is  said  that  the  Di- 
vines of  the  17th  Century  are  considered  as  distinct- 
ly propounding  and  supporting  the  doctrines  of  the 
Fathers.  "  Nor  could  a  more  acceptable  or  impor- 
tant service  be  done  to  our  Church  at  the  present 
moment,  than  the  publication  of  some  systematic  in- 
troduction to  theology,  embodying  and  illustrating 
the  great  and  concordant  principles  and  doctrines  set 
forth"  by  those  divines.  We  take  for  granted  that 
this  is  meant  only  to  place  the  divines  of  tlie  17th 
Century  in  a  place  of  preference  as  authorities,  above 
those  of  the  following  Century.  Certainly  it  could 
not  have  been  intended  that  writers  of  the  16th  Cen- 
tury, contemporaneous  with  the  framers  of  the  Articles 
and  Homilies,  and  some  of  them  those  framers  them- 
selves, should  not  be  considered  as  at  least  as  good  ex- 
pounders of  those  documents  as  men  of  a  subsequent 
period.  If  it  be  true  that  the  Fathers  who  lived  nearest 


449 


the  Apostolic  age  are  to  be  considered  as  worthy  of 
special  deference  when  they  testify  to  the  doctrine  of 
the  Apostles,  for  the  same  reason  must  we  conclude 
that  in  the  question  before  us,  a  question  of  evidence, 
(what  doctrines  were  the  Articles  and  Homilies  con- 
sidered as  teaching  by  those  who  framed  them?)  the 
most  direct  appeal  is  to  the  wTitings  of  the  age  in 
which  they  were  constructed.  Beginning  therefore 
with  the  Reformers  we  shall  not  descend  lower  than 
those  writers  of  the  17th  Century  whom  the  Oxford 
Tracts  have  pronounced  to  be  of  such  special  v^alue 
in  ascertaining  the  doctrines  of  the  Church. 

But  there  is  one  writer  whose  testimony  may  be 
considered,  as  of  such  final  authority  upon  this  ques- 
tion, by  the  acknowledgment  of  Oxford  divines  them- 
selves, or  of  those  who  belong  to  that  school,  that 
we  might  be  justified  in  going  no  further  than  his 
writings.    We  mean  the  judicious  Hooker. 

*' Of  honoured  names  (says  Dr.  Hook)  the  Church  of  England 
holds  none  more  highly  in  honour  ihnn  that  of  the  judicious  Hook- 
er."^ 

Adopting  the  language  of  Wordsworth  the  same 
writer  proceeds : 

«'  Hooker  may  justly  be  regarded  as  the  genuine  lineal  descend- 
ant of  the  most  enlightened  English  Reformers ;  and  possessing 
learning  equal  to  any  of  ihem,  with  more  opportunities  of  meditation 
and  the  accumulated  advantage  of  their  labours  and  experience,  he 
may  perhaps  not  improperly  be  considered  as  exhibiting  in  his  writ- 
ings a  model  of  the  true,  settled,  most  approved,  mature  and  Catho- 
lic principles  of  the  English  Reformation."^ 

Now  it  is  not  pretended  by  Oxford  Divines  that 
this  most  eminent  authority  was  of  the  same  mind 


1  Call  to  Union,  p.  70. 
57 


2  Wordsworth's  Biography,  iv.  269. 


450 


with  themselves,  on  the  question  of  justifying  right- 
eousness, whether  it  be  inherent  or  imputed.  On  this 
fundamental,  point  of  their  whole  system  it  is  granted, 
in  Mr.  Keble's  introduction  to  his  late  edition  of 
Hooker's  works,  and  by  Newman  in  the  appendix  to 
his  Lectures  on  Justification,  that  Hooker's  senti- 
ments were  contrary  to  theirs.  But  this  confession 
of  Mr.  Newman  is  worth  a  little  attention.  He  quotes 
from  Hooker  the  following  passage  : 

"  The  Romanists  profess  that  they  seek  salvation  no  other  way 
than  by  the  blood  of  Christ;  and  that  humbly  they  do  use  prayers, 
fastings,  alms,  faith,  charity,  sacrifice,  sacraments,  priests,  only  as 
the  means  appointed  by  Christ,  to  apply  the  benefit  of  His  holy  blood 
unto  them  ;  touching  our  good  works,  that  in  their  own  natures,  they 
are  not  meritorious,  nor  answerable  to  the  joys  of  heaven;  it  cometh 
of  the  grace  of  Christ,  and  not  of  the  work  itself,  that  we  have  by 
well  doing  a  right  to  heaven  and  deserve  it  worthily.  If  any  man 
think  that  I  seek  to  varnish  their  opinions,  to  set  the  better  foot  of  a 
lame  cause  foremost,  let  him  know  that  since  I  began  thoroughly  to 
understand  their  meaning,  1  have  found  their  halting  greater  than 
perhaps  it  seemeth  to  them  which  know  not  the  deepness  of  Satan, 
as  the  Blessed  Divine  speaketh."  §  33. 

"This  passage,"  (Mr.  Newman  says)  '*it  must  be 
candidly  confessed,  is  by  implication  contrary  to  the 
sentiments  maintained  in  the  foregoing  pages,"  i.  e. 
in  his  Lectures  on  Justification,  the  authentic  voucher 
for  Oxfordism  on  that  subject,  according  to  Dr.  Pusey. 
Now  what  is  the  scope  of  this  passage  of  Hooker. 
He  had  been  all  along  charging  the  Church  of  Rome 
with  perverting  the  truth  of  Christ  and  overthrowing 
the  foundations  of  the  Faith  by  making  the  justifica- 
tion of  the  sinner  to  rest  upon  the  merits  of  his  own 
works ;  and  this  he  grounded  not  upon  their  express 
pretence  of  meritorious  obedience,  but  upon  their 


451 


making  justification  to  consist  in  a  righteousness 
within  us,  and  therefore  our  own  as  much  as  our  souls 
are  our  own.  ^  Then,  in  the  above  passage,  he  cites 
their  strong  professions  of  not  considering  their  own 
works  as  meritorious,  but  of  seeking  ail  merit  in 
Christ.  But  they  did  not  in  the  least  diminish  the 
weight  of  Hooker's  condemnation.  Deny  the  ascrip- 
tion of  merit  to  their  own  righteousness  as  they 
pleased,  he  still  regarded  their  system  as  founded  on 
the  basis  of  a  meritorious  obedience.  Therefore  said 
he,  I  have  found  their  halting  greater  than  perhaps 
it  seemeth  to  them  which  know  not  the  deepness  of 
Satan.  If  there  were  no  other  leaven  in  the  lump  of 
their  doctrine  but  this,  this  were  sufficient  to  prove 
that  their  doctrine  is  not  ag^reeable  to  the  foundation 
of  Christian  faith."  Renounce  the  idea  of  merito- 
rious obedience  as  they  would,  this  leaven  of  our  own 
righteousness  for  justification,  he  considered  the  same 
thing  as  acknowledging  that  "  we  have  received  the 
power  of  meriting,  by  the  blood  of  Christ,"  and  thus 
he  regarded  the  Church  of  Rome  as  an  adversary 
to  the  merits  of  Christ ^ 

Now  it  is  where  Hooker  is  expressing  such  strong 
condemnation  of  Romanism,  that  he  is  confessed  by 
Mr.  N.  to  be  contrary  to  the  sentiments  of  his  Lec- 
tures, which  is  no  less  than  the  acknowledgment 
that  the  whole  stress  of  Hooker's  Discourse  on  Justi- 
fication is  contrary  to  his  Lectures,  since  it  is  all  up- 
on the  same  principle.  Here  then  we  have  the  con- 
fession that  the  words  which  Hooker  wrote  against 
Romanism  are  applicable  also  to  Oxford  ism ;  that 


Disc,  of  Justif.  ^  6. 


452 


where  he  charges  the  doctrine  of  human  merit  upon 
the  Romish  system,  in  spite  of  the  declarations  of 
Romanists  that  they  ascribe  all  m.erit  to  Christ,  he 
would  alike  ascribe  the  same  to  the  Oxford  system, 
in  spite  of  the  similar  protestations  of  Oxford  Divines, 
inasmuch  as  in  one  system  as  well  as  the  other,  the 
basis  of  Justification  is  our  own  righteousness.  Con- 
sequently it  is  acknowledged  that  what  Hooker  said 
of  the  Romish,  he  would  equally  say  of  the  Oxford 
doctrine,  that  \X perverts  the  truth  of  Christ;  is  ''an 
adversary  to  Chris  fs  merits''  and  overthrorveth  the 
foundation  of  the  Faith.''' 

The  mode  by  which  Mr.  Newman  attempts  to  do 
away  the  effect  of  Hooker's  opposition,  is  too  curious 
not  to  be  noticed.  Having  confessed  the  contrariety 
of  Hooker's  doctrine,  he  says : 

"  It  does  not  avail  in  the  least  as  authority  against  them  (those  of 
his  own  Lectures)  for  the  fo!lo\vin<T  plain  reason  :  because  this  great 
author,  in  the  very  treatise  in  which  he  so  speaks,  confesses  he  is 
not  acqviescing  in  the  theology  of  the  early  Church.''^ 

Now  who  would  not  suppose,  from  this  bold  asser- 
tion, that  Hooker  had  indeed  confessed  that  on  the 
subject  of  justification,  (which  is  the  whole  subject 
of  his  Discourse,  and  especially  of  the  passage  alluded 
to  by  Mr.  N.)  he  is  not  in  agreement  with  the  an- 
cient and  universal  Church  ?  It  is  startling  indeed 
to  hear  such  views  of  Hooker,  so  praised  in  other 
places  by  these  writers  for  his  Catholic  doctrines; 
and  when  he  is  in  the  act  of  defending  the  doctrines 
of  a  Church  which,  in  her  homily  on  justification, 
expressly  claims  the  consent  of  ''all  old  and  ancient 
doctors  of  Christ' s  Church,  both  GreeJtS  and  Latins." 
But  one  at  first  supposes  there  must  be  such  a  con- 


453 


fession,  or  Mr.  N.  would  not  have  asserted  it.  The 
reader  will  be  amazed  to  see  in  what  the  confession 
consists.  The  passage  extracted  from  Hooker,  as 
containino^  the  confession,  is  the  followinor: 

"The  heresy  of  free-will  was  a  mill-stone  about  the  Pelagians' 
neck:  shall  we  therefore  give  sentence  of  death  inevitable  against 
all  those  Fathers  in  the  Greek  Church,  which,  being  misdirected, 
died  in  the  error  of  free-will?" 

Now  by  what  process  5oes  Mr.  N.  make  out  from 
this  passage  that  Hooker  plainly  confessed  that  his 
views  of  Justification  were  diverse  from  those  of  the 
early  Catholic  Church?  Thus: 

'*  The  doctrines  (he  says)  of  grace  (free-will)  and  justification  are 
too  closely  connected  to  allow  of  a  Treatise  judging  rightly  of  the 
importance  of  questions  concerning  the  latter,  which  is  not  to  be  fol- 
lowed in  its  view  of  the  former." 

The  reasoning  then  is  this :  because  Hooker  con- 
sidered some  Fathers  of  the  Greek  Church  to  be  in- 
fected Avith  errors  concerning  free-will,  therefore  we 
are  to  consider  hhu  as  plainly  confessing  that  he  dif- 
fered with  those  Fathers  concerning  the  righteous- 
ness of  Justif  cation.  But  Hooker  speaks  only  of 
some  Greek  Fathers.  Yes,  but  Mr.  N.  says:  *'To 
accuse  a  number  of  Greek  Fathers  of  mistake,  is  to 
accuse  a/Z."  Well,  but  should  we  grant  even  that, 
he  only  accuses  the  Greeh  Fathers,  not  the  whole 
Catholic  Church.  But,  says  ]\Ir.  N.:  "To  accuse 
the  Greek  Fathers  is  virtually  to  oppose  the  ivhole 
Catholic  Church.'"  It  comes  to  this;  to  accuse  some 
of  the  Greek  Fathers  of  error  is  to  accuse  the  whole 
Catholic  Church  of  error.  To  confess  that  we  differ 
from  some  Greek  Fathers  ow  free-will,  is  a  plain  con- 
fession that  we  differ  from  the  whoJe  Catholic  con- 


454 


sent,  both  Latin  and  Greek,  on  justification  I  Thus 
the  authority  of  Hooker,  against  Oxford  doctrine,  is 
made  of  no  account!  Let  us  see  how  such  reason- 
inof  will  answer  !  It  is  common  for  the  Tract  Di- 
vines  to  acknowdedere  some  thing's  to  have  been  be- 
lieved  by  some  Fathers,  and  not  by  the  whole  Church; 
and  therefore  to  be  not  of  Catholic  verity.  Thus 
they  accuse  some  Fathers  of  error.  But  to  accuse 
some,  according  to  Mr.  N.  is  to  accuse  all;  therefore 
their  own  opinions,  where  they  are  opposed  to  the 
some,  are  opposed  to  all  and  of  no  manner  of  avail. 
This  is  a  singular  illustration  of  what  the  Oxford 
Doctrine  of  Tradition  comes  to,  and  what  a  nose  of 
wax  it  is  when  they  find  it  convenient  to  elongate  or 
depress  it,  for  the  sake  of  ruling  out  of  court  an  unac- 
ceptable witness. 

Such  then  being  the  acknowledged  doctrine,  and 
such  the  acknowledged  eminence  of  Hooker's  autho- 
rity, we  will  station  our  citations  from  him  as  a  sort 
of  centre  around  which  shall  be  assembled  those  of 
the  age  immediately  before  him,  such  as  we  shall 
produce  from  the  17th  Century;  thus  obtaining  the 
evidence  that,  what  Hooker  so  earnestly  maintained 
as  the  doctrine  of  the  Anglican  Church,  was  univer- 
sally received  among  the  great  lights  of  that  Church, 
from  the  Reformation  to  his  day,  and  for  a  long  time 
after  he  had  gone  to  his  rest. 

In  all  the  passages  to  be  produced  in  this  Chapter, 
the  reader  will  note  the  bearing  on  the  following  fun- 
damental points. 

1.  That  the  righteousness  by  which  we  are  Justi- 
fied before  God  is  no  other  than  the  Righteousness 
of  Christ,  external  to  us  and  imputed. 


455 


2.  That  the  only  mean  whereby  we  apply,  em- 
brace or  apprehend  that  righteousness,  is  a  living 
faith;  no  external  ordinance,  no  internal  grace  hav- 
ing any  part  with  faith  in  its  office  of  justifying. 

3.  That  in  this  office,  faith  acts  not  as  having  in 
itself  any  justifying  virtue  or  quality,  nor  as  it  is  but 
a  name  for  obedience  and  all  religion,  but  only  rela- 
tively and  instrumentallij ,  as  the  hand  by  which  we 
put  on  the  righteousness  of  Christ. 

With  these  points  in  view,  we  will  cite  from 
Hooker's  Ecclesiastical  Polity;  his  Discourse  on  Jus- 
tification, and  his  Sermons  on  St.  Jude. 

THE  JUDICIOUS  hooker:  ECCL.  POL. 

"Thus  we  participate  Christ,  partly  by  imputation,  as  when  those 
things  which  he  did  and  suffered  for  us  are  imputed  unto  us  for 
righteousness;  partly  by  habitual  and  real  infusion,  &c.  That 
wherein  we  are  partakers  of  Jesus  Christ  by  imputation  consisteth 
in  such  acts  and  deeds  of  his,  as  could  not  have  longer  continuance 
than  while  they  were  in  doing,  nor  at  that  very  time  belong  unto 
any  other,  but  to  him  from  whom  they  come ;  and  therefore,  how 
men,  either  then,  or  before,  or  since,  should  be  made  partakers  of 
them,  there  can  he  no  way  imagined,  hut  only  hy  imputation,''^ — 
Ecch  Pol.  I.  V.  §  56. 

HOOKER  ON  JUSTIFICATION. 

*'  Christ  hath  merited  righteousness  for  as  many  as  are  found  in 
him.  In  him  God  findeth  us  if  we  be  faithful ;  for  by  faith  we  are  in- 
corporated into  Christ.  Then,  although  in  ourselves  we  be  alto- 
gether sinful  and  unrighteous,  yet  even  the  man  which  is  impious  in 
himself,  full  of  iniquity,  full  of  sin  ;  him  being  found  in  Christ  through 
faith,  and  having  his  sin  remitted  through  Repentance ;  him  God  be- 
holdeth  with  a  gracious  eye,  puttefh  away  his  sin  by  not  imputing  it, 
taketh  quite  away  the  punishment  due  thereunto,  by  pardoning  it, 
and  accepteth  him  in  Jesus  Christ,  as  perfectly  righteous,  as  if  he 
had  fulfilled  all  that  was  commanded  him  in  the  Law;  shall  I  say 


456 


more  perfectly  righteous,  than  if  himself  had  fulfilled  the  whole 
Law.  I  must  take  heed  what  1  say:  but  the  Apostle  saith,  God 
made  him  to  be  sin  for  us,  who  knew  no  sin,  that  we  might  be  made 
the  righteousness  of  God  in  him.  Such  we  are  in  the  sight  of  God 
the  Father,  as  is  the  very  son  of  God  himself.  Let  it  be  counted 
folly,  or  frenzy,  or  fury,  whatsoever,  it  is  our  comfort  and  our  wis- 
dom :  we  care  for  no  knowledge  in  the  world  but  this,  that  man  hath 
sinned  and  God  hath  suffered;  that  God  hath  made  himself  the  son 
of  man,  and  that  men  are  made  the  righteousness  of  God.  You 
see,  therefore,  that  the  Church  of  Rome,  in  teaching  justification  by 
inherent  Grace,  doth  pervert  the  truth  of  Christ ;  and  that  by  the 
hands  of  the  Apostles  we  have  received  otherwise  than  she  teachelh. 
Now  concerning  the  righteousness  of  sanctification,  we  deny  it  not 
to  be  inherent;  we  grant  that  unless  we  work,  we  have  it  not;  only 
we  distinguish  it  as  a  thing  different  in  nature  from  the  righteousness 
of  justification,  we  are  righteous  the  one  way  by  the  faith  of  Abra- 
ham ;  the  other  way,  except  we  do  the  works  of  Abraham,  we  are 
not  righteous.  Of  the  one,  St.  Paul,  To  him  that  worketh  not,  but 
believeth,  faith  is  accounted  for  righteousness;  of  the  other,  St. 
John,  Quifacit,justitian,  Justus  est.  He  is  righteous  which  worketh 
righteousness.  Of  the  one,  St.  Paul  doth  prove  by  Abraham's  ex- 
ample, that  we  have  it  of  faith  without  works  ;  of  the  other,  St. 
James  by  Abraham's  example,  that  by  works  we  have  it,  and  not 
only  by  faith.  St.  Paul  doth  plainly  sever  these  two  parts  of  Chris- 
tian righteousness  one  from  the  other.  For  in  the  sixth  to  the 
Romans  thus  he  writeth,  Being  freed  from  sin,  and  made  servants 
to  God,  ye  have  your  fruit  in  holiness,  and  the  end  everlasting  life. 
Ye  are  made  free  from  sin,  and  made  servants  unto  God;  this  is 
the  righteousness  of  justification ;  ye  have  your  fruit  in  holiness; 
this  is  the  righteousness  of  sanctification.  By  the  one  we  are  in- 
terested in  the  right  of  inheriting ;  by  the  other  we  arc  bronght  to 
the  actual  possession  of  eternal  bliss,  and  so  the  end  of  both  is  ever- 
lasting life.  §  6. 

"  We  ourselves  do  not  teach  Christ  alone,  excluding  our  own 
faith,  unto  justification  ;  Christ  alone,  excluding  our  own  works,  un- 
to sanctification ;  Christ  alone,  excluding  the  one  or  the  other  un- 
necessary unto  salvation.  It  is  a  childish  cavil  wherewith  in  the  mat- 
ter of  justification  our  adversaries  do  so  greatly  please  themselves, 


457 


exclaiming,  that  we  tread  all  Christian  virtues  under  our  feet,  and 
require  nothing  in  Christians  but  Faith  ;  because  we  teach  that  Faith 
alone  juslifieth ;  whereas  by  this  speech  we  never  meant  to  exclude 
either  Hope  or  Charity  from  being  always  joined  as  inseparable 
males  with  Faith  in  the  man  that  is  justified  ;  or  works  from  being 
added  as  necessary  duties,  required  at  the  hands  of  every  justified 
man  ;  but  to  show  that  Faith  is  the  only  hand  which  putteth  on  Christ 
unto  justification ;  and  Christ  the  only  garment,  which  being  so  put 
on,  covereth  the  shame  of  our  defiled  natures,  hideth  the  imperfec- 
tion of  our  works,  preserveth  us  blameless  in  the  sight  of  God,  be- 
fore whom  otherwise  the  weakness  of  our  Faith  were  cause  sufficient 
to  make  us  culpable,  yea,  to  shut  us  from  the  kingdom  of  heaven, 
where  nothing  that  is  not  absolute  can  enter."  §  31. 

hooker's  second  sermon  on  ST.  JUDE. 

"It  is  true,  we  are  full  of  sin  both  original  and  actual ;  whosoever 
denieth  it  is  a  double  sinner,  for  he  is  both  a  sinner  and  a  liar.  To 
deny  sin  is  most  plainly  and  clearly  to  prove  it,  because  he  that 
saith,  he  hath  no  sin,  lieth,  and  by  lying  proveth  that  he  hath  sin. 

"  But  imputation  of  righteousness  hath  covered  the  sins  of  every 
soul  which  believeth ;  God  by  pardoning  our  sin  hath  taken  it  away: 
so  that  now  although  our  transgressions  be  multiplied  above  the 
hairs  of  our  head,  yet  being  justified,  we  are  as  free  and  as  clear  as 
if  there  were  no  spot  or  stain  of  any  uncleanness  in  us.  For  it  is 
God  that  justifieth  ;  And  who  shall  lay  any  thing  to  the  charge  of 
God's  chosen?  saith  the  Apostle  in  Rom.  viii. 

"  Now  sin  being  taken  away,  we  are  made  the  righteousness  of 
God  in  Christ:  for  David,  speaking  of  this  righteousness,  saith, 
Blessed  is  the  man  whose  iniquities  are  forgiven.  No  man  is 
blessed,  but  in  the  righteousness  of  God  ;  every  man  whose  sin  is 
taken  away  is  blessed :  therefore  every  man  whose  sin  is  covered, 
is  made  the  righteousness  of  God  in  Christ.  This  righteousness  doth 
make  us  to  appear  most  holy,  most  pure,  most  unblamable  before 
him. 

*'  This  then  is  the  sum  of  that  which  1  say;  faith  doth  justify; 

justification  washeth  away  sin;  sin  removed,  we  are  clothed  •  ith 

the  righteousness  which  is  of  God  ;  the  righteousness  of  God  maketh 

us  most  holy.    Every  of  these  I  have  proved  by  the  testimony  of 
58 


458 


God's  own  mouth;  therefore  I  conclude,  that  faith  is  that  which 
makelh  us  most  holy,  in  consideration  whereof  it  is  called  in  this 
place  our  most  holy  faith. 

"  To  make  a  wicked  and  a  sinful  man  most  holy  through  his  be- 
lieving is  more  than  to  create  a  world  of  nothing.  Our  faith  most 
holy !  Surely,  Solomon  could  not  show  the  Queen  of  Sheba  so 
much  treasure  in  all  his  kingdom,  as  is  lapt  up  in  these  words.  O 
that  our  hearts  were  stretched  out  like  tents,  and  that  the  eyes  of  our 
understanding  were  as  bright  as  the  sun,  that  we  might  thoroughly 
know  the  riches  of  the  glorious  inheritance  of  the  saints,  and  what 
is  the  exceeding  greatness  of  his  power  towards  us,  whom  he  ac- 
cepteth  for  pure,  and  most  holy,  through  our  believing!  O  that  the 
Spirit  of  the  Lord  would  give  this  doctrine  entrance  into  the  stony 
and  brazen  heart  of  the  Jew;  which  foUoweth  the  law  of  righteous- 
ness, but  cannot  attain  unto  the  righteousness  of  the  Law  !  Where- 
fore? saith  the  Apostle.  They  seek  righteousness,  and  not  by  faith; 
■wherefore  they  stumble  at  Christ,  they  are  bruised,  shivered  to  pieces, 
as  a  ship  that  hath  run  herself  upon  a  rock.  O  that  God  would  cast 
down  the  eyes  of  the  proud,  and  humble  the  souls  of  the  high-minded  ! 
that  they  might  at  the  length  abhor  the  garments  of  their  own  flesh, 
which  cannot  hide  their  nakedness,  and  put  on  the  faith  of  Christ 
Jesus,  as  he  did  put  it  on  which  haih  said.  Doubtless  1  think  all 
things  but  loss,  for  the  excellent  knowledge-sake  of  Christ  Jesus 
my  Lord,  for  whom  I  have  counted  all  things  loss,  and  do  Judge 
them  to  be  dung,  that  1  might  win  Christ,  and  might  be  found  in 
him,  not  having  my  own  righteousness  which  is  of  the  law,  but  that 
which  is  through  the  faith  of  Christ,  even  the  righteousness  which 
is  of  God  through  faith.  O  that  God  would  open  the  ark  of  mercy, 
wherein  this  doctrine  lieth,  and  set  it  wide  before  the  eyes  of  poor 
afflicted  consciences,  which  fly  up  and  down  upon  the  waters  of  their 
afflictions,  and  can  see  nothing,  but  only  the  gulph  and  deluge  of 
their  sins,  wherein  there  is  no  place  for  them  to  rest  their  feet!" — 
§§  24—28. 

We  have  said  before  that  the  contrariety  of  Hook- 
er's doctrine  of  justification  to  that  of  the  Oxford 
School  is  granted  by  the  leading  men  of  that  frater- 
nity. But,  as  if  his  Discourse  on  justification  were 
the  only  work  in  which  Hooker  has  bequeathed  his 


459 


doctrine  on  that  subject,  we  find  in  Mr.  Newman  and 
Mr.  Keble,  an  attempt  to  evade  his  testimony  w^bich 
cannot  go  unnoticed.  There  is  enough  (says  Mr. 
N.)  in  Hooker's  writinc^s  and  historv  to  show  that 
this  valuable  treatise,  written  before  his  views  were 
fully  matured,  and  published  after  his  death,  is  not 
to  be  taken  in  all  points  as  authority."  ^  In  the  same 
strain,  writes  Mr.  Keble  in  his  Edition  of  Hooker's 
Works.  Hooker's  compositions  upon  this  subject" 
(justification,)  are  mostly  of  an  early  date,  when  he 
hardly  seems  to  have  acquired  that  independence  of 
thought  which  appears  in  the  Polity." 

Thus  it  is  attempted  to  take  away  the  strong  testi- 
mony of  the  glory  of  the  English  Priesthood,"  by 
the  consideration  that  he  delivered  it  in  immaturity 
of  mind.  But  let  us  hear  another  writer,  whose  as- 
sertions, if  his  name  be  not  as  weighty  as  that  of  Mr. 
Newman  or  Mr.  Keble,  are  too  undeniable  to  need 
the  weight  of  any  name.  Speaking  of  Hooker's  Dis- 
course on  Justification,  he  says  : 

"  It  was  written  upon  a  most  important  occasion,  under  circum- 
stances which  rendered  it  necessary  to  bestow  the  most  careful  con- 
sideration upon  every  word,  was  elaborated  with  the  utmost  sedulity, 
and  transcribed  by  the  author  himself,  for  the  purpose  of  having  it 
attentively  examined  by  his  friends.  So  far  from  betraying  any 
symptoms  of  a  dependent  mind,  it  was  composed  in  defence  of  what 
some  of  the  greatest  theologians  of  the  time  were  startled  at  as  a  no- 
vel and  dangerous  paradox ;  (but  having  no  reference  to  the  present 
question)  and  it  is  inferior  to  none  of  his  other  writings  in  originality 
of  conception,  vigour  of  thought  and  energy  of  diction.  But  suppose 
that  this  sermon  actually  was  written  before  its  author  was  quite  out 
of  leading  strings,  is  there  any  evidence  to  show  that  in  this  particu- 
lar his  more  robust  judgment  corrected  the  weak  conclusions  of  the 


'  Lectures  on  Justif.  p.  443. 


460 


youth?  Not  a  panicle.  On  the  contrary,  in  the  very  latest  legacy 
which  he  bequeathed  to  the  Church,  the  Fragment  of  a  reply  to  '  The 
Christian  Letter,'  (vol.  ii.  p.  700  et  seq.  of  Keble's  Edition)  he  has 
incorporated  an  abstract  of  this  very  sermon,  and  repeated,  almost 
in  the  same  words,  his  former  profession  of  belief  in  the  imputa- 
tion of  ChrisVs  righteousness  and  the  justification  of  sinners  by 
faith  only:'' 

With  the  citations  from  Hooker,  which  might  be 
greatly  multiplied,  we  consider  the  question  as  to  the 
conformity  of  the  Oxford  views  of  justification  and 
faith  with  those  of  the  Anglican  Church,  to  be  real- 
ly settled,  for  it  is  out  of  the  question  to  suppose  him 
to  have  been  the  divine  they  say  he  was,  and  yet  to 
have  been  so  egregiously  mistaken  upon  the  most  im- 
portant features  of  Church  doctrine,  as  he  must  have 
been  if  the  doctrines  of  the  above  extracts  were  not 
those  of  the  Church  for  which  he  was  writinor. 

But  we  proceed  to  show  how  very  prominently  and 
earnestly  and  generally  these  same  views  were  pro- 
fessed and  urged  by  the  Reformers  before  him. 

TYNDALE,  REFORMER  AND  MARTYR. 
"In  opening  the  Scriptures  (says  Fox  of  Tyndale)  what  truth, 
what  soundness  can  a  man  require  more,  or  what  more  is  to  be  said 
than  is  to  be  found  in  Tyndale?  Not  unrightly  he  might  be  then, 
as  he  is  yet  called,  the  Apostle  of  England,  for  as  the  Apostles  in 
the  primitive  age  first  planted  the  Church  in  truth  of  the  Gospel ;  so 
the  same  truth  being  again  decayed  and  defaced  by  enemies  in  this 
our  latter  time,  there  was  none  that  travailed  more  earnestly  in  re- 
storing the  same  in  this  realm  of  England  than  did  William  Tyn- 
dale." 

In  Tyndale' s  exposition  of  Matt.  vi.  we  read : 

"  When  I  say  faith  justifieth,  the  understanding  is  that  faith  re- 
ceiveth  the  justifying.    God  promiseth  to  forgive  us  our  sins  and  to 


'  Episcopacy,  Tradition  and  the  Sacraments,  by  Rev.  W.  Fitzgerald,  B.  A. 


461 


impute  us  for  full  righteous.  And  God  justifieth  us  actively;  that  is 
to  say,  forgiveth  us  and  reckoneth  us  for  full  righteous.  And  Christ's 
blood  deserveth  it  and  certifieth  the  conscience  thereof.  Faith  chal- 
lengeth  it  for  Christ's  sake,  which  halh  deserved  all  that  is  promised, 
and  cleaveth  ever  to  the  promise  and  truth  of  the  promiser,  and  pre- 
tendeth  not  the  goodness  of  her  work,  but  acknowledgeth  that  our 
works  deserve  it  not,  but  are  crowned  and  rewarded  with  ihe  deserv- 
ings  of  Christ.  Our  works  which  God  commendeth,  and  unto  which 
he  has  annexed  the  promise  that  he  will  reward  them,  are  as  it  were* 
very  sacraments,  and  visible  and  sensible  signs,  tokens,  earnest  obli- 
gations, witnesses,  testimonies,  and  a  sure  certifying  of  our  souls, 
that  God  hath  and  will  do  according  to  his  promise,  to  strengthen 
our  weak  faith,  and  to  keep  the  promise  in  mind.  But  they  justify 
us  not,  no  more  than  the  visible  works  of  the  sacraments  do.  As 
for  an  example,  the  work  of  Baptism,  that  outward  washing,  which 
is  the  visible  sacrament  or  sign,  justifieth  us  not.  But  God  only  jus- 
tifieth us  actively,  as  cause  efficient  or  workman.  God  promiseth 
to  justify  whosoever  is  baptized  to  believe  in  Christ,  and  to  keep  the 
law  of  God,  that  is  to  say,  to  forgive  them  their  fore-sins  and  to  im- 
pute righteousness  unto  them,  to  take  them  for  his  sons  and  to  love 
them  as  well  as  though  they  were  full  righteous.  Christ  hath  de- 
served us  that  promise  and  that  righteousness.  KnA  faith  doth  re- 
ceive it,  and  God  doth  give  it  and  impute  it  to  faith,  and  not  to  the 
washing.  And  the  washing  doth  testify  it  and  certify  us  of  it,  as  the 
pope's  letters  do  certify  the  believers  of  the  pope's  pardons.  Now 
the  letters  help  not  nor  hinder,  but  that  the  pardons  were  as  good 
without  them,  save  only  to  establish  weak  souls  that  could  not  be- 
lieve, except  they  read  the  letters,  looked  on  the  seal,  and  saw  the 
print  of  St.  Peter's  keys." — Fathers  of  the  English  Church,  vol,  v. 
pp.  236,  237  ,  238. 

"Hereof  ye  see  that  1  cannot  be  justified  without  repentance,  and 
yet  repentance  justifieth  me  not.  And  hereof  ye  see,  that  I  cannot 
have  a  faith  to  be  justified  and  saved  except  love  spring  thereof  im- 
mediately: and  yet  love  justifieth  me  not  before  God.  And  when 
we  say,  faith  only  justifieth  us,  that  is  to  say,  receiveth  the  mercy 
wherewith  God  justifieth  us  and  forgiveth  us,  we  mean  not  faith 
which  halh  no  repentance,  and  faith  which  hath  no  love  unto  the 
laws  of  God  again  and  unto  good  works,  as  wicked  hypocrites  falsely 
belie  us. — Hereof  ye  see  what  faith  it  is  that  justifieth  us. — The  faith 


462 


in  Christ's  blood,  of  a  repenting  heart  towards  the  law  doth  justify 
us  only,  and  not  all  manner  of  faiths  — We  make  good  works  sure 
tokens  whereby  we  know  that  our  faith  is  no  feigned  imagination 
and  dead  opinion,  made  with  captivating  our  wits  after  the  Pope's 
traditions,  but  a  lively  thing  wrought  by  the  Holy  Ghost — And 
when  Paul  saith  ^faith  only Justifeih,^  and  James,  that  'a  7nan  is 
justijied  by  tcorks,  and  not  by  faith  only,^  there  is  a  great  difference 
between  Paul's  only  and  James'  only.  For  Paul's  only  is  to  be  under- 
stood that  faith  justifieth  in  the  heart  and  before  God,  without  help 
of  works,  yea,  and  ere  I  can  work.  For  I  must  receive  life,  through 
faith,  to  work  with,  ere  I  can  work.  But  James'  only  is  this  wise  to 
be  understood  that  faith  doth  not  so  justify  that  nothing  justifieth  save 
faith.  For  deeds  do  Justify  also.  But  faith  justifeth  in  the  heart 
before  God,  and  the  deeds  before  the  world  only,  and  make  the 
other  seem,^'' — Tyndale  on  Justification,  in  answer  to  Sir  Thomas 
More's  Dialogue,  published  in  1530.  Fathers  of  the  English  Church, 
pp.  285—292. 

ROBERT  BARNES,  D.D.,  REFORMER  AND  MARTYR. 

This  Reformer  is  one  of  the  three,  Tjndale  and 
Frith  beino^  the  others,  whom  Fox  calls  '-chief  rin^:- 
leaders"  of  the  Eno^lish  Reformation.  They  "sus- 
tained  the  first  brunt  and  (?ave  the  first  onset  ao^ainst 
the  enemies."  Bishop  Bale,  a  learned  and  zealous 
contemporary  Reformer,  in  his  Catalogus  Scriptorum 
illustrium  Britanniariim,  says  of  him  that  ''with  great 
firmness  and  sincerity,  he  maintained  the  justification 
of  a  sinner  through  faith  alone,  in  the  work  of  Christ 
our  Saviour,  against  the  ungodly  preachers  of  human 
works."  He  was  martyred  by  fire  in  1541.  In  an- 
swer to  the  argument  that  faith  is  a  work,  but  works 
do  not  justify;  therefore  faith  doth  not  justify,"  he 
says : 

<'  Truth  it  is,  that  we  do  not  mean,  how  that  faith  for  his  own  dig- 
nity, and  for  his  own  perfection,  doth  justify  us.  But  the  Scripture 
doth  say,  that  faith  alone  justifieth,  because  that  it  is  that  thing  alone, 


463 


whereby  I  do  hang,  of  Christ.  And  by  my  faith  alone  am  I  par- 
taker of  the  merits  and  mercy  purchased  by  Christ's  blood  ;  and 
faith  it  is  alone  that  receiveth  the  promises  made  in  Christ.  Where- 
fore we  say  with  blessed  St.  Paul,  that  faith  only  justifieth  imputa- 
tive; that  is  all  the  merits  and  goodness,  grace  and  favour,  and  all 
that  is  in  Christ  to  our  salvation,  is  imputed  and  reckoned  unto  us 
because  we  hang  and  believe  on  him,  and  he  can  deceive  no  man 
that  doth  believe  in  him.  And  our  justice  is  not  (as  the  Schoolmen 
teach)  a  formal  justice  which  is,  by  fulfilling  of  the  law,  deserved 
of  us;  for  then  our  justification  were  not  of  grace  and  of  mercy,  but 
of  deserving  and  of  duty.  But  it  is  a  justice  that  is  reckoned  and 
imputed  unto  us,  for  the  faith  in  Christ  Jesus,  and  it  is  not  of  our  de- 
serving, but  clearly  and  fully  of  mercy  imputed  unto  us. 

"  Then  cometh  my  Lord  of  Rochester  (Fisher,  Romish  Bishop  of 
Rochester)  and  he  saith  that  faith  doih  begin  a  Justification  in  us  but 
works  do  perform  it  and  make  it  perfect.  I  will  recite  his  own 
words:  'Justification  is  said  to  be  begun  only  by  faith,  but  not  to 
be  consummated,  for  consummate  justification  can  no  otherwise  be 
attained  than  by  works,  wrought  and  brought  forth  to  light.' 

This  is  precisely  the  Oxford  doctrine  of  Justifica- 
tion increasing  according  to  the  degrees  of  sanctifi- 
cation — or  of  Fides  Formata,  faith  made  perfect  by 
love  and  other  works  and  therefore  justifying. 

*'  What  christened  man  (says  Barnes)  would  think  that  a  Bishop 
could  thus  trifle,  and  play  with  God's  holy  word  ?  God's  word  is  so 
plain,  that  no  man  can  avoid  it,  how  that  faith  justifieth  alone ;  and  now 
cometh  my  Lord  of  Rochester,  with  a  liille  and  vain  distinction  invent- 
ed of  his  own  brain,  without  authority  of  Scripture,  and  will  clearly 
avoid  all  Scripture.  But,  my  Lord,  say  to  me  of  your  conscience,  how 
do  you  reckon  to  avoid  the  vengeance  of  God  since  you  thus  trifle 
and  despise  God's  holy  word  1  Doth  not  St.  Paul  say  that  our  Jus- 
tification is  alone  of  faith,  and  not  of  works?  How  can  you  avoid 
this  same,  Non  exoperibus?  (not  of  works  Eph.  11.)  If  that  works 
do  make  justification  perfect,  then  are  not  St.  Paul's  words  true ; 
also  St.  Paul  saith  that  '  we  are  the  children  of  God  by  faith.'  And 
if  we  are  the  children,  we  are  also  the  heirs.  Now  what  imperfec- 
tion find  you  in  children  and  in  heirs?  Christian  men  desire  no 
more  but  this,  and  all  this  they  have  by  faith  only.    And  will  you 


464 


say  that  faith  doth  but  begin  a  justification?" — Treatise  on  Justifi- 
cation, entitled  "  Only  Faith  justijieth  before  God.'^  Fathers  of 
the  English  Church,  vol.  v.  pp.  577  4'  o87. 

ARCHBISHOP  CRANMER,  REFORMER  AND  MARTYR. 

The  doctrine  of  this  celebrated  witness  of  the  truth 
is  fully  declared  in  the  eleventh,  twelfth,  and  thir- 
teenth articles  on  Justification  by  Faith,  and  on  Works 
preceding  and  following  Faith,  together  with  the 
Homily  of  Salvation,  more  largely  expounding  them ; 
all  which  are  of  his  composition.  But  the  following 
passages  from  his  other  writings  will  not  be  useless 
in  further  testimony. 

"  The  gracious  and  benign  promises  of  God  by  the  mediation  of 
Christ  show  us,  and  that  to  our  great  relief  and  comfort,  whensoever 
we  be  repentant  and  return  fully  to  God  in  our  hearts,  that  we  have 
forgiveness  of  our  sins,  be  reconciled  to  God,  and  reputed  just  and 
righteous  in  his  sight,  only  by  his  grace  and  mercy,  which  he  doth 
grant  and  give  unto  us  for  his  dearly  beloved  Son's  sake  Jesus 
Christ ;  whose  sanctified  body,  offered  on  the  cross,  is  '  the  only  sac- 
rifice of  sweet  and  pleasant  savour,'  as  St.  Paul  saith  ;  that  is  to  say, 
of  such  sweetness  and  pleasantness  lo  the  Father,  that  for  the  same 
he  accepteth  and  reputeth,  of  like  sweetness,  all  them,  that  the  same 
offering  doth  serve  for.  These  benefits  of  God  whosoever  expendeth 
and  well  pondereth  in  his  heart,  and  thereby  conceiveth  a  frm  trust 
and  feeling  of  God's  mercy,  whereof  springeth  in  his  heart  a  warm 
love  and  fervent  heat  of  zeal  tov/ards  God,  it  is  not  possible  but  that 
he  shall  fall  to  work,  and  be  ready  to  the  performance  of  all  such 
works  as  he  knoweth  to  be  acceptable  unto  God ;  and  these  works 
only  which  follow  our  J  ustif  cation,  do  please  God;  for  so  much  as 
they  proceed  from  an  heart  endued  with  pure  faith  and  love  to  God. 
Now  they  that  think  to  come  to  justification  by  performance  of  the 
law,  ^  by  their  own  deeds  and  merits,  or  by  any  other  means  than 


1  It  will  be  remembered  that  in  Oxford  Divinity,  we  are  justified  by  fulfilling 
of  the  law.  "  Christians  fnljil  the  law  in  the  very  sense  of  pleasiiig  God^  "  A 
Christian's  life  is  availabe,  justifying-^    See  pages  74  and  75. 


465 


is  above  rehearsed,  they  go  from  Christ,  they  renounce  his  grace ; 
(Christ  is  become  of  none  effect  unto  you  whosoever  of  you  are  jus- 
tified by  the  law,  ye  are  fallen  from  grace.)  They  be  not  partakers 
of  the  justice  that  he  hath  procured,  or  the  merciful  benefits  that  be 
given  by  him.  For  St.  Paul  sailh  a  general  rule  for  all  them  that 
will  seek  such  by-paths ;  those  (saith  he,)  which  will  not  acknowledge 
the  justness  or  righteousness  which  cometh  by  God,  but  go  about  to 
advance  their  own  righteousness,  shall  never  come  to  that  righteous- 
ness which  we  have  by  God ;  which  is  the  righteousness  of  Christ, 
by  whom  only  all  the  saints  in  heaven,  and  all  others  that  have  been 
saved,  have  been  reputed  righteous,  and  justified.'^'' — Annotations  on 
the  King^s  Book,  in  Fathers  of  the  English  Ch.  vol.  Hi,  pp.  110 
—112. 

"  Moreover  seeing  that  Christ  was  not  overcome  by  death,  &c., 
hereby  we  may  evidently  perceive  that  the  great  wrath  and  indigna- 
tion of  God  to  us  hath  an  end,  that  by  our  lively  faith  in  him  our 
sins  be  forgiven  us,  and  that  we  be  reconciled  into  the  favour  of  God, 
made  holy  and  righteous.  For  then  God  doth  no  more  impute  unto 
us  our  former  sins,  but  he  doth  impute  and  give  unto  us  the  justice 
and  righteousness  of  his  Son  Jesus  Christ.^  which  suffered  for  us. 
For  likewise  as  when  another  man  doth  pay  my  ransom  and  satisfy 
or  suffer  for  me,  I  myself  am  judged  to  pay  the  same,  and  no  man 
after  can  accuse  me  thereof;  and  when  another  is  bound  for  me,  if 
he  be  by  any  means  discharged,  1  myself  am  counted  to  be  discharged  ; 
even  so  for  as  much  as  Christ  himself  took  upon  him  the  band  of 
death  for  us,  and  to  satisfy  for  us,  and  so  did  indeed  by  his  death  ; 
we  ourselves,  for  whom  he  was  thus  bound,  justly  be  delivered  and 
discharged  from  death  and  damnation.  And  so  we  be  counted 
righteous,  for  as  much  as  no  man  dare  accuse  us  for  that  sin  for  the 
which  satisfaction  is  made  by  our  Saviour  Christ." — Catechism  in 
Fathers  of  the  English  Ch.  vol.  Hi.  p.  221. 

*'  By  faith,  we  be  justified  before  God,  {for  faith  maketh  us  par- 
takers of  the  justice  of  Christ  and  planteth  us  in  Christ,)  and  he 
that  by  true  faith  doth  receive  the  promise  of  grace,  to  him  God 
giveth  the  Holy  Ghost,  by  whom  charity  is  spread  abroad  in  our 
hearts  which  performeth  all  the  commandments.  Therefore  he  that 
believeth  in  Christ,  and  truly  believeth  the  Gospel,  he  is  just  and 

holy  before  God,  by  the  Justice  of  Christ,  which  is  imputed  and 
59 


466 


given  unto  him,  as  Paul  saiih  :  '  we  think  that  man  is  justified  by- 
faith  without  works.'  He  is  also  just  before  the  worlds  because  of 
the  love  and  charity  which  the  Holy  Ghost  worketh  in  his  heart. 
Faith  worketh  peace  and  quietness  in  our  hearts  and  consciences. 
For,  by  faith,  we  be  certain  that  our  sins  be  forgiven.  This  peace 
bringeth  unto  us  a  great  and  singular  joy  in  our  hearts  and  con- 
sciences, and  maketh  us  for  this  exceeding  benefit  of  God's  mercy 
and  grace  towards  us  fervently  to  love  him,  gladly  to  laud  and  praise 
him,  to  honour  his  name,  and  to  profess  the  same  before  all  the 
world,  and  to  be  swift  and  ready  to  do  all  things  that  may  please 
God,  and  to  eschew  those  things  that  may  displease  him." — Cate- 
chis7n,  ^c.  p.  254. 

BISHOP  HOOPER,  REFORMER  AND  MARTYR. 

"  In  his  doctrine  (says  Fox)  he  was  earnest,  in 
tongue  eloquent,  in  the  Scriptures  perfect,  in  pains 
indefatigable."  "  Of  all  those  qualities  required  of 
St.  Paul  in  a  good  Bishop,  I  know  not  one  in  this 
good  Bishop  lacking."  In  citing  from  Hooper  we 
have  the  advantage  of  virtually  citing  the  contempo- 
raneous Reformer  and  Martyr,  Bishop  Ridley,  inas- 
much as  while  both  were  in  prison,  for  the  testimony 
of  Jesus,  the  latter  wrote  to  Hooper  in  these  v/ords : 
"For  as  much  as  I  understand  by  your  works,  that 
we  thoroughly  agree  and  rvholly  consent  together  in 
those  things  rvhich  are  the  grounds  and  substantial 
points  of  our  religion,  against  the  which  the  world 
doth  so  furiously  rage  in  these  our  days,  &c.  Thus 
then  writes  Hooper,  in  his  Declaration  of  Christ," 
of  Justification : 

"  St.  Paul  when  he  saith  that  we  be  justified  by  faith,  meaneth 
that  we  have  remission  of  sins,  reconciliation,  and  acceptance  into 
the  favour  of  God.  To  be  justified  by  faith  in  Christ  is  as  much  as 
to  say,  we  obtain  remission  of  sin  and  are  accepted  into  the  favour 
of  God  by  the  merits  of  Christ.    To  be  justified  by  works,  is  as 


467 


much  as  to  say,  to  deserve  remission  of  sin  by  works.*  Faith  doth 
not  only  show  us  Christ  that  died  and  now  sitteth  at  the  right  hand 
of  God,  but  also  applieth  the  merits  of  this  death  unto  us,  and  maketh 
Christ  ours."  (Oxford  Divinity  says  Baptism,  not  faith,  does  this.) 
"  It  disputeth  not  what  virtues  it  bringeth  (wretched  soul)  to  claim  this 
promise  of  mercy  ;  but  forsaking  her  own  justice,  ofFereth  Christ  dead 
upon  the  cross,  and  sitting  at  God's  right  hand.  It  maketh  nothing 
to  be  the  cause^  wherefore  this  mercy  should  be  given,  saving  only 
the  death  of  Christ,  which  is  the  only  sufficient  price  and  guage  for 
sin.'^  And  although  it  be  necessary  that  in  the  justification  of  a  sin- 
ner, contrition  be  present,  and  that  necessarily  charity  and  virtuous 
life  must  follow  ;  yet  doth  the  Scripture  attribute  the  only  remission 
of  sin  unto  the  mercy  of  God,  which  is  given  only  for  the  merits  of 
Christ  and  received  only  by  faith.  And  mark  this  manner  of  speech  ; 
*  we  are  justified  by  faith,'  that  is  'we  are  just  through  the  confi- 
dence of  mercy.'  This  word  faith,  doth  comprehend  as  well  persua- 
sion and  confidence,  that  the  promise  of  God  appertaineth  unto  us, 
for  Christ's  sake,  as  the  knowledge  of  God.  For  faith,  though  it 
desire  the  company  of  contrition  and  sorrow  for  sin,  yet  contendeth 
it  not  in  judgment  upon  the  merits  of  any  works,  but  only  for  the 
merits  of  Christ's  death.  We  must  therefore  only  trust  to  the  merits 
of  Christ,  which  satisfied  the  extreme  jot  and  uttermost  point  of  the 
law  for  us.  And  this  his  justice  and  perfection,  he  impuieth  and 
communicateth  to  us  by  faith.  Such  assay  that  faith  o^iZi/ justifieth 
not,  because  other  virtues  be  present,  they  cannot  tell  what  they  say. 
Every  man  that  will  have  his  conscience  appeased  must  mark  these 
two  things,  how  remission  of  sin  is  obtained,  and  wherefore  it  is  ob- 
tained. Faith  is  the  mean  whereby  it  is  obtained,  and  the  cause 
wherefore  it  is  received  is  the  merits  of  Christ.  Although  faith  be 
the  means  whereby  it  is  received,  yet  hath  neither  faith,  nor  charity, 
nor  contrition,  nor  the  word  of  God,  nor  all  those  knit  together  suffi- 
cient merits  wherefore  we  should  obtain  remission  of  sin.  Let  the 
man  burst  his  heart  with  contrition,  believe  that  God  is  good  a  thous- 
and times,  and  burn  in  charity,  yet  shall  not  all  these  satisfy  the 
law,  nor  deliver  man  from  the  ire  of  God,  till  such  time  as  faiih  let- 

1  According  to  Oxford  doctrine  we  are  justified  by  our  obedience  or  works. 
Hooper  says  this  is  to  say  that  we  deserve  remission  of  sin.  So  that  while  the 
Oxford  system  rejects  merit  in  the  name,  it  espouses  it  in  the  thin^. 

2  For  the  formal  cause  with  Oxfordism,  see  page  153. 


468 


teth  fall  all  hope  and  confidence  in  the  merits  of  such  virtues  as  be 
in  man,  and  say,  *  Lord  behold  thy  unfruitful  servant ;  only  for  the 
merits  of  Christ's  blood  give  me  remission  of  sins.'  As  the  fathers 
of  the  Old  Testament  used  the  brazen  serpent,  so  must  those  of  our 
Church  use  the  precious  body  of  Christ.  They  looked  upon  him 
(the  serpent)  only  with  the  eyes  of  faith,  they  kissed  him  not,  they 
touched  him  not  v^^ith  their  hands,  they  ale  him  not  corporeally,  nor 
really,  nor  substantially ;  yet  by  their  belief,  they  obtained  health. 
So  Christ  himself  teacheth  us  the  use  of  his  precious  body;  to  believe 
and  look  upon  the  merits  of  his  passion  suffered  upon  the  cross, ^  and 
so  to  use  his  precious  body  against  the  sting  of  original  and  actual  sin  ; 
not  to  eat  his  body  transformed  into  the  form  of  bread,  or  in  the  bread, 
with  the  bread,  under  the  bread,  behind  the  bread,  or  before  the 
bread,  corporally  or  bodily,  substantially  or  really,  invisible,  or  any 
such  ways,  as  many  men,  to  the  great  injury  of  Christ's  body,  do 
teach. 

"  They  that  will  justify  themselves  any  other  way  than  by  faith, 
do  doubt  always  whether  their  sins  be  forgiven  or  not;  and  by  rea- 
son of  this  doubt  they  can  never  pray  unto  God  aright." — Bishop 
Hooper'' s  Declaration  of  Christ,  Fathers  of  the  English  Church, 
pp,  141—149. 

BISHOP  LATIMER,  REFORMER  AND  MARTYR. 

Christ  was  "  a  Lamb  undefiled,  and  therefore  suffered  not  for  his 
own  sake,  but  for  our  sake,  and  with  his  suffering  hath  taken  away 
all  our  sins  and  wickedness,  and  hath  made  us,  which  were  the  chil- 
dren of  the  devil,  the  children  of  God,  fulfilling  the  law  for  us  to  the 
uttermost,  giving  us  freely  ^  as  a  gift^  his  fulfilling  to  be  ours.  So 
that  we  are  now  fulfillers  ^of  the  law  by  his  fulfilling,  so  that  the  law- 
may  not  condemn  us.  For  he  hath  fulfilled  it,  so  that  we  believing 
in  him,  are  fulfillers  of  the  law,  and  just  before  the  face  of  God. 
Wherefore  we  must  be  justified,  not  through  our  good  works,  but 
through  the  passion  of  Christ,  and  so  live  by  a  free  justification  and 
righteousness  in  Christ  Jesus.  Whosoever  thus  believeth,  mistrust- 
ing himself  and  his  own  doings,  and  trusting  in  the  merits  of  Christ, 
he  shall  get  the  victory  over  death,  the  devil  and  hell.  Therefore 


1  See  all  this  very  differently  represented  by  Mr.  Newman — page  76  of  this 
work. 


469 


when  thou  art  in  sickness,  and  feelest  that  the  end  of  thy  bodily  life 

approachelh,  and  that  the  devil  with  his  assaults  cometh  to  tempt 
thee — saying  '  It  is  written  in  the  law  that  all  those  which  have  not 
fulfilled  the  law  to  the  uttermost  shall  be  condemned.  Now  thou 
hast  not  fulfilled  it,  therefore  thou  art  mine,  &c.'  Against  such 
temptations  and  assaults  of  the  devil,  we  must  fight  in  this  wise  and 
answer  :  '  I  acknowledge  myself  to  be  a  sinner  most  miserable  and 
filthy  in  the  sight  of  God,  and  therefore,  of  myself,  ]  should  be 
damned  according  to  thy  saying.  But  there  is  yet  one  thing  behind ; 
that  is  this,  I  know  and  believe  without  all  doubt  that  God  hath  sent 
his  Son  into  the  world,  who  suffered  a  most  painful  and  shameful 
death  for  me,  and  fulfilled  the  law  wherewith  thou  wouldst  condemn 
me.  Yea,  he  hath  given  me,  as  a  gift,  his  fulfilling,  so  that  I  am 
now  reckoned  a  fulfUltr  of  the  law  before  God,  therefore  avoid 
thou  most  cruel  enemy,  avoid,  for  I  know  that  my  Redeemer  liveth, 
who  hath  taken  away  all  my  sin  and  wickedness,  and  set  me  at 
unity  with  God,  and  made  me  a  lauful  inheritor  of  everlasting  life." 
—  Sermon  on  St.  Luke,  ii.  42.  Fathers  of  English  Church,  vol, 
ii,  pp.  451—453. 

When  we  believe  in  Christ,  it  is  like  as  if  we  had  no  sins.  For 
he  changeth  with  us ;  he  taketh  our  sins  and  wickedness  from  us, 
and  giveth  unto  us  his  holiness,  righteousness,  justice,  fulfilling  of 
the  law,  and  so  consequently,  everlasting  life.  So  that  we  be  like 
as  if  we  had  done  no  sin  at  all ;  for  his  righteousness  standeth  us  in 
good  stead,  as  though  we  of  our  own  selves  had  fulfilled  the  law  to 
the  uttermost." — Sermons  on  the  Lord's  Prayer,  Fathers,  ^-c, 
vol.  ii.  p.  485. 

"  Therefore,  let  us  study  to  believe  in  Christ.  Let  us  put  all  our 
hope,  trust  and  confidence  only  in  him.  Let  us  patch  him  with 
nothing.  It  is  his  doing  only.  God  hath  given  him  unto  us  to  be 
our  deliverer,  and  to  give  us  everlasting  life.  O  I  what  a  joyful 
thing  is  this?  what  a  comfortable  thing  is  it?  that  we  know  now 
that  neither  devil,  hell,  nor  any  thing  in  heaven  or  earth  shall  be 
able  to  condemn  us  when  we  believe  in  Christ." — Sermon  on  Si. 
John's  Day.    Fathers,  ^-c,  p.  677. 

"The  preacher  hath  a  busy  work  to  bring  his  parishioners  to  a 
right  faith,  as  Paul  calleth  it— to  a  faith  that  embraceth  Christ  and 
trustelh  to  his  merits;  a  lively  faith,  a  justifying  faith,  a  faith  that 


470 


maketh  a  man  righteous,  without  respect  of  works,  as  ye  have  it  very 
well  declared  and  set  forth  in  the  Homily. — Sermori  of  the  Plough. 
Fathers,  <^^c,,  p.  646. 

"  Faith  is  a  great  lady,  and  she  hath  ever  a  great  company  and 
train  about  her.  First  she  hath  a  gentleman-usher  that  goelh  before 
her,  and  where  he  is  not  there  is  not  Lady  Faith.  This  gentleman- 
usher  is  called  knowledge  of  sin.  Now  as  the  gentleman-usher  goeth 
before  her,  so  she  hath  a  train  that  cometh  behind,  they  be  all  of 
faith's  company,  they  are  all  with  her — her  whole  household;  and 
those  be  the  works  of  our  vocation,  when  every  man  considereth 
what  vocation  he  is  in,  and  doth  the  works  of  the  same,  as  to  be 
good  to  his  neighbour,  to  obey  God,  &c.  Faith  is  never  without 
her  train  ;  she  is  no  anchoress;  she  dwells  not  alone,  she  is  never 
a  private  woman," — Fourth  Sermon  before  King  Edward.  Fathers, 
<^c.,  p.  652. 

Of  one  of  the  above  train  of  faith,  viz.,  love,  which 
Paul  says  is  greater  than  faith  and  hope,  Latimer 
says: 

"Though  love  be  the  chiefest,  yet  we  must  not  attribute  unto  her 
the  office  which  perfainefh  unto  faith  only.  Like  as  I  cannot  say, 
The  Mayor  of  Stamford  must  make  me  a  pair  of  shoes,  because 
he  is  a  greater  man  than  the  shoemaker  is !  For  the  Mayor,  though 
he  be  the  greater  man,  yet  it  is  not  his  office  to  make  shoes;  so 
though  love  be  the  greater,  yet  it  is  not  her  office  to  save." — Sermon 
on  the  3d  Sunday  in  Advent.    Fathers,  ^-c,  p.  677. 

The  Homily  on  Justification,  which  is  but  the  au- 
thorised exposition  of  the  Article  of  Justification,  was 
written  in  the  reis^n  of  Edward  VI.  In  the  same 
brief  reign  appeared,  by  authority,  a  Catechism,  which 
is  now  known  as  King  Edward  vi's.  Catechism. 

"  In  this  (according  to  Archbishop  Wake,)  the  complete  model  of 
our  Church  Catechism  was  laid.'  It  was  published  by  the  King's 
authority,  having  been  examined  (as  the  injunction  of  the  Council, 
for  its  use,  declares,)  by  '  certain  bishops  and  learned  men ;'  it  was 
subscribed  by  Cranmer  and  Ridley,  as  well  as  others,  and  passed  by 
the  same  Synod  of  London  1552,  by  which  the  Articles  were  framed 
and  concluded." — Strype^s  Memorials. 


471 


CATECHISM  OF  EDWARD  VI. 
"  oft,  therefore,  as  we  use  to  say  that  we  are  made  righteous, 
and  saved  by  only  Faith,  it  is  meant  thereby,  that  Faith,  or  rather 
trust  alone,  doth  lay  hand  upon,  to  understand,  and  perceive,  our 
Righteous-making  to  be  given  us  of  God  freely  ;  that  is  to  say,  by 
no  deserts  of  our  own,  but  by  the  free  grace  of  the  Almighty  Father. 
Moreover  faith  doth  engender  in  us  the  love  of  our  neighbour  and 
such  works  as  God  is  pleased  withal.  For,  if  it  be  a  lively  and 
true  faith,  quickened  by  the  Holy  Ghost,  she  is  the  mother  of  all 
good  saying  and  doing.  By  this  short  tale,  it  is  evident,  whence, 
and  by  what  means,  ice  attain  to  be  made  righteous.  For,  not  by 
the  icorthiness  of  our  deservings  were  we  either  heretofore  chosen 
or  long  ago  saved  ;  but  by  the  only  mercy  of  God  and  pure  grace 
of  Christ  our  Lord,  whereby  ice  are  in  hint  made  to  those  good 
works  that  God  hath  appointed  for  us  to  walk  in.  And  although 
good  works  cannot  deserve  to  make  us  righteous  before  God  ;  yet  do 
they  so  cleave  unto  faith,  that  neither  can  faith  be  formed  without 
them,  nor  good  works  be  any  where  without  faith. ^"^ 

CONFESSION  OF  MARTYRS  AND  DIVINES  IN  PRISON. 

"  A  brief  confession  has  comedown  upon  us,  drawn  up  by  certain 
Bishops  and  Divines  imprisoned  for  the  faith  under  Queen  Mary.  It 
was  signed  by  Robert  Ferrer,  Bishop  of  St.  David,  Rowland  Taylor, 
John  Philpot,  John  Bradford,  Lawrence  Saunders,  John  Hooper, 
Bishop  of  Gloucester,  Edward  Crome,  John  Rogers,  and  Edward 
Lawrence.  It  is  dated  May  8th,  1554,  and  it  has  annexed  the  sub- 
sequent declaration.  To  these  things  aforesaid,  do  I,  Miles  Cover- 
dale,  late  Bishop  of  Exeter,  consent  and  agree,  with  these  mine  af- 
flicted brethren  being  prisoners — Mine  own  hand,  Miles  Cover  dale.'''' 

"  We  believe  and  confess  concexnm^justification,  that  as  it  cometh 
only  of  God's  mercy,  through  Christ,  so  it  is  perceived  and  had  of 
none,  which  be  of  years  of  discretion,  otherwise  than  by  faith  only  ; 
which  faith  is  not  an  opinion,  but  a  certain  persuasion  wrought  by 
the  Holy  Ghost  in  the  mind  and  heart  of  man,  whereby  as  the  mind 
is  illuminated,  so  the  heart  is  suppled  to  submit  itself  to  the  will  of 
God  unfeignedly,  and  so  showeth  forth  an  inherent  righteousness 
which  is  to  be  discerned  in  the  article  of  justification,  from  the  right- 
eousness which  God  endueth  us  withal  in  justifying  us,  although  in- 
separably they  go  together. 


472 


This  we  do  not  for  curiosity  or  contention  sake,  but  for  conscience 
sake;  that  it  might  be  quiet,  which  it  can  never  be,  if  we  confound 
without  distinction,  forgiveness  of  sin,  and  ChrisV s  justice  imputed 
to  us,  with  regeneration  and  inherent  righteousness.''^ — Strype's 
Memorials — Cat,  of  Originals,  No.  17. 

nowell's  catechism. 

This  Catecliism  was  approved  and  allowed  by  the 
Convocation  in  the  reign  of  Elizabeth;  after  laying 
sometime  unpublished  in  the  hands  of  Secretary  Ce- 
cil, it  was  called  for  by  both  Archbishops,  for  publi- 
cation, and  was  at  length  issued  from  the  press  in 
1572,  under  a  dedication  to  the  Archbishops  and  all 
the  Bishops  of  the  Church  of  England.  Such  was 
the  standard  value  set  on  this  work,  in  that  age,  that 
^'it  was  thought  fit  that  Ministers  should  converse  in 
this  Catechism  and  learn  true  divinity  from  it." 
Archbishop  Whitgift  said  of  it:  ''I  know  no  man 
so  well  learned,  but  it  may  become  him  to  read 
and  learn  that  sacred  and  necessary  book."  To 
these  testimonies,  Strype,  in  his  Annals,  adds  the 
following : 

"  Many  years  after,  concerning  this  Catechism  thus  it  was  writ  by 
a  great  Bishop,  in  answer  to  Martin  Mar,  Prelate  :  '  For  a  Catechism 
I  refer  them  to  that  which  was  made  by  the  learned  and  good  man, 
Mr.  Nowell,  Dean  of  St.  Paul's,  received  and  allowed  by  the  Church 
of  England,  and  very  fully  grounded  and  established  upon  the  word 
of  God.  There  may  you  see  all  the  parts  of  true  religion  received, 
the  difficulties  expounded,  the  truth  declared,  the  corruptions  of  the 
Church  of  Rome  rejected.'  " — Strype^s  Annals  of  the  Beforma' 
Hon,  p.  212. 

This  Catechism  may  therefore  be  received  as  a 
most  authentic  voucher  for  the  doctrines  of  the 
Church  as  understood  in  the  reign  of  Elizabeth. 


473 


After  declaring  in  part  the  difference  between  a 
true  or  lively  faith  and  a  dead  faith,  the  Catechism 
proceeds : 

CATECHISM. 

"  The  true  faith,  as  it  nothing  doubteth  that  all  things  taught  in 
the  word  of  God  are  most  certainly  true,  so  doth  it  also  embrace  the 
promises  made  concerning  the  mercy  of  God  the  Father,  and  the  for- 
giveness of  sins  to  the  faithful  through  Jesus  Christ,  which  promises 
are  properly  called  the  Gospel ;  which  faith  whosoever  have,  they  do 
not  only  fear  God  as  the  most  mighty  Lord  of  all,  and  the  most 
righteous  Judge  (which  we  have  already  said  that  the  most  part  of 
the  ungodly  and  the  devils  themselves  do,)  but  also  they  love  him  as 
their  most  bountiful  and  merciful  Father,  whom  as  they  travail  in  all 
things  to  please  (as  becometh  obedient  children)  with  godly  endea- 
vours and  works,  which  are  called  the  fruits  of  faith,  so  have  they  a 
good  and  a  sure  hope  of  obtaining  pardon  through  Christ,  when,  as 
men,  they  swerve  from  his  will.  For  they  know  that  Christ,  (whom 
they  trust  upon)  appeasing  the  wrath  of  his  Father,  their  sins  shall 
never  be  imputed  any  more  to  them,  than  if  the  same  had  never  been 
committed.  And  though  themselves  have  not  satisfied  the  law,  and 
their  duty  towards  God  and  men,  yet  believe  they  that  Christ,  with 
his  most  full  observing  of  the  law,  haih  abundantly  satisfied  God  for 
them,  and  are  persuaded  that  by  this  his  righteousness  and  observing 
of  the  law  of  God,  themselves  are  accounted  in  the  number  and  state 
of  the  righteous,  and  that  they  are  beloved  of  God,  even  as  if  them- 
selves had  fulfilled  the  law.  And  this  is  the  justification  which  the 
Holy  Scriptures  do  declare  that  we  obtain  by  faiih." 

In  answer  to  the  question,  what  way  we  must  take 
to  be  received  into  God's  favour,  the  Catechism  an- 
swers : 

"  We  must  flee  to  the  mercy  of  God,  whereby  he  freely  embraceth 
us  with  love  and  good-will  in  Christ,  without  any  our  deserving  or 
respect  of  works,  both  forgiving  us  our  sins,  and  so  giving  us  the 
righteousness  of  Christ  by  Faith  in  him,  that  for  the  same  Christ's 
righteousness  he  so  accepteth  us,  as  if  it  were  our  own.  To  God's 
mercy  therefore  through  Christ  we  ought  to  impute  all  our  justifica- 
tion. 

60 


474 


Master,  How  do  we  know  it  ought  to  be  thus? 

Scholar.  By  the  Gospel,  which  containeth  the  promises  of  God 
by  Christ,  to  the  which  when  we  adjoin  faith,  that  is  to  say  an  as- 
sured persuasion  of  mind  and  steadfast  confidence  of  God's  good 
will,  such  as  hath  been  set  out  in  the  whole  Creed,  we  do,  as  it  were, 
take  state  and  possession  of  this  justification  that  1  speak  of. 

Ma.  Dost  not  thou  then  say,  that  faith  is  the  principal  cause  of 
this  justification,  so  as  by  the  merit  of  faith  we  are  counted  righteous 
before  God? 

SchoL  No:  for  that  were  to  set  faith  in  the  place  of  Christ.  But 
the  spring-head  of  this  justification  is  the  mercy  of  God,  which  is 
conveyed  to  us  by  Christ,  and  is  ofl^ered  to  us  by  the  Gospel,  and 
received  of  us  by  faith  as  with  a  hand. 

Ma.  Thou  sayest  then  that  faith  is  not  the  cause,  but  the  instru- 
ment of  justification,  for  that  it  embracelh  Christ,  which  is  our  justi- 
fication, coupling  us  with  so  strait  bond  to  him,  that  it  maketh  us 
partakers  of  all  his  good  things? 

Schol,  Yea,  forsooth. 

Ma.  But  can  this  justification  be  so  severed  from  good  works,  that 
he  that  hath  it  can  want  them? 

Schol.  No:  for  by  faith  we  receive  Christ  such  as  he  delivereth 
himself  unto  us.  But  he  doth  not  only  set  us  at  liberty  from  sins 
and  death,  and  make  us  at  one  with  God,  but  also  with  the  divine 
inspiration  and  virtue  of  the  Holy  Ghost  doth  regenerate  and  newly 
form  us  to  the  endeavour  of  innocency  and  holiness,  which  we  call 
newness  of  life. 

Ma.  Thou  sayest  then  that  justice,  faith,  and  good  works,  do  natu- 
rally cleave  together,  and  therefore  ought  no  more  to  be  severed, 
than  Christ,  the  author  of  them  in  us,  can  be  severed  from  himself? 

Schol.  It  is  true. 

Ma.  Then  this  doctrine  of  faith  doth  not  withdraw  men's  minds 
from  godly  works  and  duties? 

Schol.  Nothing  less.  For  good  works  do  stand  upon  faith  as 
upon  their  root.  So  far,  therefore,  is  faith  from  withdrawing  our 
hearts  from  living  uprightly,  that,  contrariwise,  it  doth  most  vehe- 
mently stir  us  up  to  the  endeavour  of  a  good  life;  yea,  and  so  far, 
that  he  is  not  truly  faithful  that  doth  not  to  his  power  shun  vices  and 
embrace  virtues,  so  living  always  as  one  that  looketh  to  give  an  ac- 
count. 


475 


Ma.  What  thinkest  thou  of  those  works  which  we,  after  that  we 
be  reconciled  to  God's  favour,  do  by  the  instinct  of  the  Holy  Ghost  ? 

Schol.  The  dutiful  works  of  godliness,  which  proceed  out  of  faith, 
working  by  charity,  are  indeed  acceptable  to  God,  yet  not  by  their 
own  deserving  ;  but  that  for  he,  of  his  liberality,  vouchsafeth  them 
his  favour.  For  though  they  be  derived  of  the  Spirit  of  God,  as  lit- 
tle streams  from  the  spring-head,  yet  of  our  flesh,  that  mingleth  itself 
with  them  in  the  doing  by  the  way,  they  receive  corruption,  as  it 
were  by  infectionr,  like  as  a  river,  otherwise  pure  and  clear,  is  trou- 
bled and  mudded  with  mire  and  slime,  wherethrough  it  runneth. 

Ma.  Mow  then  dost  thou  say  that  they  please  God  1 

Schol.  It  is  faith  that  procureth  God's  favour  to  our  works,  while 
it  is  assured  that  he  will  not  deal  with  us  after  extremity  of  law,  nor 
call  our  doings  to  exact  account,  nor  try  them  as  it  were  by  the 
square;  that  is,  he  will  not,  in  valuing  them  and  weighing  them,  use 
severity,  but  remitting  and  pardoning  all  their  corruptness,  for  Christ's 
sake  and  his  deservings,  will  account  them  for  fully  perfect. 

Ma.  Then  thou  standest  still  in  this,  that  we  cannot  by  merit  of 
works  obtain  to  be  justified  before  God,  seeing  thou  ihinkest  that  all 
doings  of  men,  even  the  perfectest,  do  need  pardon  1 

Schol.  God  himself  hath  so  decreed  in  his  word ;  and  his  Holy 
Spirit  doth  teach  us  to  pray  that  he  bring  us  not  into  judgment.  For 
where  righteousness,  such  as  God  the  judge  shall  allow,  ought  to  be 
thoroughly  absolute,  and  in  all  parts  and  points  fully  perfect,  such  as 
is  to  be  directed  and  tried  by  the  most  precise  rule,  and,  as  it  were, 
by  the  plumb-line  of  God's  law  and  judgment ;  and  sith  our  works, 
even  the  best  of  them,  for  that  they  swerve  and  differ  most  far  from 
the  rule  and  prescription  of  God's  law  and  justice,  are  many  ways 
to  be  blamed  and  condemned  ;  we  can  by  no  nieans  be  justified  be- 
fore God  by  works. 

Ma.  Doth  not  this  doctrine  withdraw  men's  minds  from  the  duties 
of  godliness,  and  make  them  slacker  and  slower  to  good  works,  or 
at  least  less  cheerful  and  ready  to  godly  endeavours? 

Schol.  No  ;  for  we  may  not  thererefore  say  that  good  works  are 
unprofitable  or  done  in  vain  and  without  cause,  for  that  we  obtain 
not  justification  by  them.  For  they  serve  both  to  the  profit  of  our 
neighbour  and  to  the  glory  of  God;  and  they  do,  as  by  certain  lesti- 
monies,  assure  us  of  God's  good  will  toward  us,  and  of  our  love  again 
to  God-ward,  and  of  our  faith,  and  so  consequently  of  our  salvation. 


476 


And  reason  it  is,  that  we  being  redeenned  with  the  blood  of  Christ 
the  Son  of  God,  and  having  beside  received  innumerable  and  infinite 
benefits  of  God,  should  live  and  wholly  frame  ourselves  after  the  will 
and  appointment  of  our  Redeemer,  and  so  show  ourselves  thankful 
and  mindful  to  the  author  of  our  Salvation,  and  by  our  example,  pro- 
cure and  win  others  unto  him.  The  man  that  calleth  these  thoughts 
to  mind  may  sufficiently  rejoice  in  his  good  endeavours  and  works." — 
JSowelVs  Catechism^  in  Fathers  of  the  English  Church,  vol.  vii. 

HADDON  AND  FOX  AGAINST  OSORIUS. 

In  the  latter  part  of  the  16th  Century,  a  Portuguese 
Divine,  named  Osorius,  published  a  work  against  the 
English  Reformation,  by  way  of  a  letter  to  Queen 
Elizabeth.  Her  Secretary,  Cecil,  fixed  on  Dr.  Wal- 
ter Haddon,  a  man  of  great  learning,  for  the  answer- 
er. Haddon's  book  is  called,  by  Strype,  a  State- 
Book;'^  a  public  viiidication  the  like  to  which  he  knew 
none,  except  Bishop  Jewel's  Apology.''  To  this,  Osorius 
replied  in  a  work  of  three  books,  transferring  his  at- 
tack to  Luther  and  his  associates.  While  answering 
this  and  defending  the  Continental  Reformers,  Had- 
don died  in  Flanders,  1566.  John  Fox,  the  cele- 
brated author  of  the  Martyrology,  was  chosen  to  com- 
plete his  unfinished  work,  which  he  did  in  three 
additional  parts,  under  the  special  directions  of  Sec- 
retary Cecil.  This  joint  work,  a  large  part  of  which 
is  on  justification,  must  be  considered  a  most  accurate 
exhibition  of  the  doctrines  of  the  English  Reforma- 
tion and  of  those  precise  points  on  which  the  Angli- 
can Church  protested  against  the  doctrine  of  Rome. 
Whoever  will  consult  it,  as  given  in  Richmond's  col- 
lection of  the  English  Reformers,  or  in  the  Fathers 
of  the  English  Ch."  vol.  viii.  will  perceive  two  things 
very  distinctly,  viz. — that  the  precise  doctrines  of 


477 


justification  and  faith,  in  their  several  ramifications, 
as  maintained  by  Mr.  Newman,  Dr.  Pusey,  &c.,  and 
exhibited  in  this  volume,  are  precisely  those  against 
which,  in  Osorius,  the  sternest  rebukes  of  Haddon 
and  Fox  are  levelled,  as  the  essence  of  Romanism, 
and  directly  at  war  with  the  Gospel,  and  also  that  in- 
stead of  the  doctrine  of  the  English  Church  being 
then  in  any  important  sense,  a  Via  Media  between 
that  of  Luther  and  the  Continental  Reformers  gene- 
rally, on  the  one  side,  and  Romanism  on  the  other, 
as  to  Justification,  the  doctrine  of  Luther  and  those 
other  Reformers  is  entirely  assumed  by  these  English 
champions,  as  without  a  question,  their  own  and  that 
of  the  Reformation  universally,  and  the  defence  of 
the  doctrine  of  the  one  is  necessarily  the  defence  of 
all  the  rest.  It  is  difficult  to  make  selections  where 
a  great  part  of  the  book  is  precisely  in  point.  There 
is  room  only  for  the  following.  In  answer  to  the 
Popish  argument,  that  lively  faith  is  not  alone  with- 
out charity  ;  ergo,  not  faith  only,  hut  faith  as  coupled 
with  charity,  doth  justify,  we  read  : 

"  If  all  things  that  go  commonly  after  a  certain  manner  together, 
and  be  done  together,  must  be  coupled  and  applied  to  one  and  the 
self-same  operation,  by  this  reason  it  must  come  to  pass,  that  he  that 
hath  feet,  eyes  and  ears,  shall  be  supposed  to  go  not  upon  his  feet 
only,  but  to  walk  upon  his  eyes,  and  to  see  with  his  ears.  For  the 
matter  goeth  none  otherwise  in  faith,  hope,  and  charity,  which  three 
heavenly  jewels,  albeit  they  be  instilled  into  us  by  the  free  liberality 
of  God,  with  remission  of  sins,  and  cleave  fast  with  one  subject,  yet 
every  of  them  is  distinguished  by  its  several  properties  and  func- 
tions notwithstanding. 

»'  As  for  example,  if  a  question  be  demanded  what  thing  it  is  that 
doth  justify  us  in  the  sight  of  God  ?  1  do  answer,  that  it  is  faith, 
yea,  and  faith  only.  If  you  demand  by  what  means?  I  do  answer, 
through  Jesus  Christ  the  Mediator.    Again  ;  if  you  ask  what  kind  of 


478 


faith  that  is?  I  do  answer,  not  an  idle,  nor  a  dead  faith,  but  a  lively 
faith  and  a  working  faith.  If  you  will  demand  further,  by  what 
marks  you  may  be  able  to  discern  a  true  ffiith  from  a  false  faith? 
St.  Paul  will  make  answer  unto  you.  '  The  true  faith  is'that  which 
worketh  by  charity.'  If  you  will  demand  further  yet,  v/hat  this 
faith  woikeih?  I  do  answer,  according  to  the  several  properties 
thereof,  two  manner  of  ways,  faith  worketh  salvation  through  Christ, 
and  it  worketh  obedience  of  the  law,  by  charity.  What!  absolute 
obedience?  I  do  not  think  so.  What  then?  Imperfect  obedience? 
But  such  a  faith  must  needs  be  insufficient  to  the  full  measure  of  ab- 
solute righteousness  and  perfect  felicity. 

"And  where  is  now  that  solemn  decree  of  the  Tridentine  Council," 
(we  add,  that  confident  doctrine  of  Oxfordism)  "  which  doth  ascribe 
the  only  beginning  of  our  justification  to  faith,  but  maketh  the  for- 
mal cause  thereof  only  charity,  as  a  certain  new  kind  of  obedience,^ 
(which  they  call  a  righteousness  cleaving  fast  within  us)  whereby 
we  are  not  only  accounted  righteous,  but  be  both  truly  called  right- 
eous, and  be  also  truly  righteous  in  the  sight  of  God  ? 

"They  do  discourse  and  determine  upon  Justification,  but  none 
otherwise  than  as  they  might  argue  in  Aristotle's  school,  about  natu- 
ral causes,  or  powers  of  the  soul.  Which  consideration  of  doctrine, 
if  it  must  be  holden  for  an  infallible  foundation,  then  let  us  be  bold, 
and  blush  not  to  root  out  withal  the  whole  nature  and  essential  sub- 
stance of  all  mystical  (spiritual)  divinity,  and  let  us  raze  out  the 
very  foundations  of  all  our  religion. 

"  For  if  the  slate  of  our  salvation  be  come  to  this  pass,  that  it  must 
be  established  by  merits  and  not  by  free  imputation  only,  where  then 
is  that  righteousness,  v/hich  is  called  the  righteousness  of  faith  ? 
the  force  and  power  whereof  is  so  highly  and  often  advanced 
by  Paul  ?^  What  shall  become  of  the  difference  between  the  law  and 
the  Gospel?  Moreover,  what  shall  become  of  that  antithesis  of  Paul 
betwixt  the  righteousness  of  the  law  and  of  faith?  betwixt  the  grace 
and  merit?  and  what  shall  become  of  all  that  excluding  of  glorious 

1  See  pp.  73,  80,  149  of  this  work  of  this  "  new  kind  of  obedience,"  under 
Protestant  auspices. 

2  The  reader  will  observe  that  in  all  the  writers  we  have  cited,  it  is  assumed 
that  between  Justification  by  a  righteousness  imputed,  and  by  our  own  works 
or  merits  there  is  no  medium.  A  half-way  plea  of  a  righteousness  m  us  for 
justification,  not  involving  the  doctrine  of  human  merit,  they  knew  nothing  of. 


479 


boasting  upon  works?  where  is  that  faith  imputed  to  Abraham  for 
righteousness?  Moreover,  how  shall  this  saying  of  Paul  agree  with 
these  Tridentine  law  givers,  to  wit.  '  Not  to  him  that  worketh,  but 
unto  him  that  believelh  on  Him  that  doth  justify  the  ungodly,  faith  is 
imputed  for  righteousness.'  Moreover,  what  shall  become  of  those 
exceptive  and  exclusive  sentences  of  St.  Paul,  wherein  all  the  con- 
sideration of  our  salvation  being  taken  away  from  confidence  in 
works,  is  ascribed  wholly  to  imputation  ?  Finally  what  shall  be- 
come of  all  those  sweet  and  most  amiable  promises  of  God,  if  ac- 
cording to  the  rule  of  this  doctrine,  we  shall  be  excluded  from  our 
assuredness  of  salvation  and  God's  free  imputation? 

•*  We  are  made  the  righteousness  of  God  through  Christ  by  the  very 
same  reason  whereby  Christ  was  made  sin  for  us. 

*'  But  Christ  was  not  made  sin  but  by  imputation  only  ;  ergo, 
neither  are  we  made  righteous  in  the  sight  of  God,  but  hy  imputation 
only. 

«'  In  the  whole  work,  the  mercy  of  the  Lord  doth  bear  the  whole 
and  full  praise  and  palm,  not  our  works  which  do  hut  follow  God's 
reconciliation  as  fruits^  and  not  make  atonement  with  God. 

*'  None  otherwise  than  as  Osorius,  when  he  doth  consecrate,  when 
he  doth  wear  his  mitre,  he  doth  not  these  to  the  end  he  would  he 
made  a  Bishop,  but  because  he  was  made  a  Bishop  before;  there- 
fore he  doth  execute  the  duties  appertaining  to  a  Bishop ;  and  as  the 
servants  of  noblemen  are  known  by  their  several  badges,  but  do  not 
wear  noblemen's  badges,  because  they  shall  become  those  noblemen's 
servants.  In  semblance  wise;  Christian  faith,  albeit  it  work  always 
by  love,  and  doth  show  a  special  demonstration  of  pure  and  true 
faith,  doth  not  therefore  procure  salvation  because  it  worketh,  but 
because  it  doth  believe  in  Christ  Jesus. — Fathers  of  the  English 
Ch.  vol.  viii.  pp.  Ill — 784. 

WILLIAM  PERKINS,  FELLOW  OF  CHRIST'S  COLLEGE, 
CAMBRIDGE. 

This  eminent  writer  died  in  1602.  His  works,  in 
three  volumes  folio,  have  been  deemed  worthy  to  be 
translated  into  divers  languages,  as  Latin,  Dutch, 
Spanish,  &c.  He  connects  the  Reformers  with  the 
writers  of  the  17th  Century.    It  was  a  high  eulo- 


480 


gium  for  such  a  man  as  the  profoundly  learned  Jo- 
seph Mede,  Fellow  of  the  same  College  (Christ's  Col- 
lege, Cambridge)  of  which  Mr.  Perkins  had  been  a 
member,  to  say  of  him  concerning  some  matter  con- 
nected with  the  satisfaction  and  intercession  of  Christ, 
as  represented  in  the  Eucharist: 

*'  This  a  reverend  and  famous  Divine  of  blessed  memory,  once  of 
this  society,  and  interred  in  this  place,  saw  more  clearly,  and  ex- 
pressed more  plainly,  than  any  other  Reformed  writer  I  have  yet 
seen."^ 

From  his  ''Reformed  Catholic^  a  Declaration  shew- 
ing how  near  we  may  come  to  the  present  Church  of 
Rome,  in  sundry  parts  of  religion;  and  rvherein  we 
must  forever  depart  from  them''  are  taken  the  follow- 
ing extracts: 

"Justification  stands  in  two  things — first,  in  the  remission  of  sins 
by  the  merit  of  Christ's  death  ;  secondly  in  the  imputation  of  Christ's 
righteousness,  which  is  another  action  of  God  whereby  he  accounteth 
and  esteemeth  that  righteousness  which  is  in  Christ  as  the  righteous- 
ness of  that  sinner  which  believeth  in  him.  By  Christ's  righteousness, 
we  are  to  understand  two  things, ^rs^,  his  sufferings,  specially  in  his 
death  and  passion ;  secondly,  his  obedience  in  fulfilling  the  law ; 
both  which  go  together;  for  Christ  in  suffering  obeyed;  and  obeying, 
suffered.  And  the  very  shedding  of  his  blood,  to  which  our  salva- 
tion is  ascribed,  must  not  only  be  considered  as  it  is  passive,  that  is, 
a  suffering;  but  also,  as  it  is  active,  that  is,  an  obedience,  in  which 
he  shewed  his  exceeding  love  both  to  his  Father  and  us,  and  thus  ful- 
filled the  law  for  us. 

"  A  man  is  justified  by  faith  alone,  because  faith  is  that  alone  in- 
strument, created  in  the  heart  by  the  Holy  Ghost,  whereby  a  sinner 
layeth  hold  of  Christ's  righteousness  and  applieth  the  same  unto  him- 
self. There  is  neither  hope,  nor  love,  nor  any  other  grace  of  God 
within  man,  that  can  do  this  but  faith  alone. 

"  We  grant  that  the  habit  of  righteousness,  which  we  call  sancti- 


'  Mede's  works,  b.  11.  c.  vi.  p.  365. 


481 

f  cation,  is  an  excellent  gift  of  God,  and  haih  its  reward  of  God,  and 
is  the  matter  of  our  Justification  before  man,  because  it  serveth  to  de- 
clare us  to  be  reconciled  to  God  and  to  be  justified ;  yet  we  deny  it 
to  be  the  thing  which  makelh  us,  of  sinners,  to  become  righteous  be- 
fore God.  And  this  is  the  first  point  of  our  disagreement  in  the  mat- 
ter of  Justification,  (with  Papists)  which  must  be  marked ;  because 
if  there  were  no  more  points  of  difl^erence  between  us,  this  one  alone 
were  sufficient  to  keep  us  from  uniting  of  our  religions;  for  hereby 
the  Church  of  Rome  doth  raze  the  very  foundation. 

"  All,  both  Papists  and  Protestants,  agree  that  a  sinner  is  justified 
by  faith.  This  agreement  is  only  in  word,  and  the  difl?erence  be- 
tween us  is  great  indeed.  And  it  may  be  reduced  to  these  three 
heads.  First,  the  Papist,  saying  that  a  man  is  justified  by  faith,  un- 
derstandeth  a  general  or  a  catholic  faith,  whereby  a  man  believeth 
the  articles  of  religion  to  be  true.^  But  we  hold  that  the  faith  which 
justifieth  is  a  particular  faith,  whereby  we  apply  to  ourselves  the 
promises  of  righteousness  and  life  everlasting  by  Christ.  The  se- 
cond difference  touching  faith,  is  this  :  the  Papist  says  we  are  jus- 
tified by  faith,  because  it  disposeth  the  sinner  to  his  justification.'^ 
We  say  otherwise  ;  that  faith  justifieth  because  it  is  a  supernatural 
instrument  created  by  God  in  the  heart  of  man,  at  his  conversion, 
whereby  he  apprehendeth  and  receiveth  Christ's  righteousness  for  his 
justification.  The  third  difference  is  this  :  the  Papist  saith  that  a 
man  is  justified  by  faith,  yet  not  by  faith  alone,  but  also  by  other 
virtues,  as  hope,  love,  the  fear  of  God."  Faith  (he  says)  is  never 
alone,  therefore  it  doth  not  justify  alone.  They  might  as  well  dis- 
pute thus;  the  eye  is  never  alone  from  the  head,  and  therefore  it 
seeth  not  alone,  which  is  absurd.  And  though  in  regard  of  sub- 
stance, the  eye  is  never  alone,  yet  in  regard  of  seeing,  it  is  alone ; 
and  so  though  faith  subsist  not  without  love  and  hope,  and  other 
graces  of  God,  yet  in  regard  of  the  acts  of  justification,  it  is  alone 
without  them  all.  Now  the  doctrine  which  we  teach  is  that  a  sin- 
ner is  justified  before  God  by  faith,  yea  by  faith  alone.  The  mean- 
ing is,  that  nothing  within  man,  and  nothing  that  man  can  do,  either 
by  nature,  or  by  grace,  concurreth  to  the  act  of  justification  before 


'  This  is  the  dead  faith,  until  it  be  made  alive  in  Baptism,  as  found  in  Oxford 
Divinity,  see  chap.  vi.  2  Xhis  is  precisely  the  language  of  Dr.  Pusey  and 

Mr.  Newman — see  chap.  vi.  ^  gee  p.  206  of  this  work. 

61 


482 


God,  as  any  cause  thereof,  either  efficient,  material,  formal,  or  final, 
but  faith  alone;  all  other  gifts  and  graces,  as  hope,  love,  the  fear  of 
God,  are  necessary  to  salvation  as  consequents  of  faith.  And  faith, 
itself,  is  no  principal,  but  only  an  instrumental  cause,  whereby  we 
receive,  apprehend  and  apply  Christ's  righteousness  for  our  justifica- 
tion."^— Perkin's  Works,  vol.  i.  pp»  567 — 572. 

We  come  now  to  the  Divines  of  the  17th  Century, 
beginning  with  Downame,  Bishop  of  Derry,  whose 
learned  Treatise  of  Justification,  with  special  refer- 
ence to  the  writings  of  Cardinal  Bellarmine,  in  de- 
fence of  Romanism,  was  published  in  1633. 

DOWNAME,  BISHOP. 

*•  Which  doctrine"(viz.  of  imputed  righteousness,  as  appears  below) 
**  is  so  inviolably  and  incorruptibly  to  be  held,  that  if  an  Apostle,  if  an 
Angel  from  Heaven  shall  teach  any  other  gospel,  that  is  any  other 
doctrine  whereby  to  be  justified  and  saved,  than  by  the  only  merits 
of  Christ  apprehended  by  faith,  he  ought  to  be  held  accursed.  But 
by  how  much  the  more  necessary  and  comfortable  this  doctrine  is : 
by  so  much  the  more  it  is  oppugned  by  Satan ; — who  hath  opposed 
it  by  all  means,  as  namely  by  raising,  not  only  other  false  teachers 
in  the  Apostles'  times  and  since,  but  even  Antichrist  and  his  adhe- 
rents in  these  later  times,  who  have  not  only  perverted  this  doctrine, 
but  also  subverted  it,  and  have  as  it  were,  taken  away  the  subject  of 
the  question ;  for  by  confounding  the  law  and  the  gospel,  the  cove- 
nant of  works,  and  the  covenant  of  grace,  the  benefits  of  justification 
and  sanctification,  and  of  two  making  but  one ;  they  have  wholly 
abolished  that  great  benefit  of  the  Messias  about  our  justification, 
whereby  we  are  freed  from  hell,  and  entitled  to  the  kingdom  of 
Heaven,  and  consequently  they  are  fallen  from  grace,  having  disan- 
nulled the  covenant  of  grace,  and  made  the  promise  of  none  efl^ect. 
For  whosoever  seeketh  to  be  justified  by  inherent  righteousness,  he 


•  Not  onlj  does  the  "  Reformed  Catholic  "  of  Perkins  contain  a  very  clear 
exhibition  of  the  Romish  doctrine  of  justification — but  under  several  of  its  heads 
it  is  a  singularly  clear  exhibition  of  Oxford  Divinity,  under  the  name  of  Ro- 
manism. 


483 


is  under  the  curse,  he  is  a  debtor  to  ihe  whole  law,  and  therefore  to 
him  Christ  has  become  of  none  effect."  p.  2. 

"  The  formal  cause  of  justification  is  the  imputation  of  Christ* s 
righteousness^  because  by  imputing  it  the  Lord  doth  justify;  which 
I  expressed  in  the  definition.  And  this  necessarily  followeth  upon 
that  which  hath  been  said  of  the  matter.  For  it  cannot  be  imagined 
how  we  should  be  justified  by  that  righteousness  of  Christ  which  is 
out  of  us  in  him,  otherwise  than  by  imputation.  For  even  as  we 
were  made  sinners  by  Adarn's  personal  disobedience;  so  we  are 
made  righteous  by  the  obedience  of  Christ.  But  how  could  we  either 
be  made  sinners  by  Adam's  disobedience,  or  justified  by  the  obedi- 
ence of  Christ,  whether  active  or  passive,  unless  they  were  commu- 
nicated unto  us.  How  could  they  possibly  be  communicated  unto 
us,  being  both  transient  and  having  now  no  being?  For  true  is  that 
saying  of  a  learned  Philosopher,  motus  nan  est  nisi  dum  Jit;  post* 
quamfactus  est^  nan  est:  A  motion  (whether  it  be  action  or  pas- 
sion) hath  no  being  but  whiles  it  is  in  doing  or  suffering;  after  it  is 
done,  it  hath  no  being.  Adam's  transgression  was  transient,  and  is 
past  and  gone,  so  many  thousand  years  past:  the  active  obedience 
of  Christ  was  transient,  and  so  was  his  passive  obedience,  which  had 
a  being  in  rerurn  natura^  no  longer  than  they  were  in  doing  and  in 
suffering.  How  then  can  either  Adam's  disobedience  or  Christ's 
obedience,  be  communicated  unto  us?  I  answer,  in  respect  of  both, 
as  Bellarmine  answereth  in  respect  of  the  former,  Communicatur 
eo  modoy  quo  communicari  protest,  id  quod  transiit,  nimirum  per 
imputationem :  It  is  communicated  after  that  manner,  whereby  that 
may  be  communicated  which  is  transient  and  gone,  to  wit,  by  im* 
putation.'^ — p.  21. 

*•  And  yet  we  deny  not,  but  that  as  they  to  whom  the  guilt  of 
Adam's  transgression  is  imputed,  are  also  by  sin  inherent  transfused 
from  him  by  carnal  generation  formally  made  sinners ;  so  they,  to 
whom  the  obedience  of  Christ  is  imputed  unto  justification,  are  also 
made  formally  just  by  an  inchoated  righteousness  received  by  influ- 
ence from  Christ,  and  infused  by  his  Spirit  in  their  spiritual  regene- 
ration."— p.  40. 

"The  first  capital  error  of  the  Papists  is,  that  they  confound  jus- 
tification and  sanctification,  and  by  confounding  of  them,  and  of  two 
benefits  making  but  one,  they  utterly  abolish,  as  shall  be  shewed, 
the  benefit  of  justification ;  which  notwithstanding  is  the  principal 


484 


benefit  which  we  have  by  Christ  in  this  life,  by  which  we  are  freed 
from  hell,  and  entitled  to  the  kingdom  of  Heaven.  And  this  they 
do  in  two  respects  :  for  first,  they  hold  that  to  justify  in  this  question, 
signifieth  to  make  righteous  by  righteousness  inherent,  or  by  infu- 
sion of  righteousness,  that  is,  to  sanctify.  Secondly,  they  make  re- 
mission of  sin,  not  to  be  the  pardoning  and  forgiving  of  sin,  but  the 
utter  deletion  or  expulsion  of  sin  by  infusion  of  righteousness.  Thus 
they  make  justification  wholly  to  consist  of  the  parts  of  sanctification." 
—p.  50. 

"  For  if  they  should  hold  that  justification  consisteth  partly  in  re- 
mission, that  is  the  forgiveness,  or  not  imputation  of  sin,  and  partly 
in  renovation  or  sanctification,  then  they  must  confess,  that  there  are 
two  formal  causes  of  justification,  which  Calvin  objected  against  the 
Council  of  Trent,  (and  may  truly  be  objected  against  such  of  the 
Fathers  as  held  justification  to  consist,  partly  in  remission,  and  partly 
in  renovation)  and  consequently  should  be  forced  to  acknowledge 
two  ways  of  making  men  just,  by  one  and  the  same  act  of  justifica- 
tion ;  the  one  by  imputation  of  that  righteousness,  by  which  being 
without  us  we  have  remission  of  sin;  the  other,  by  infusion  of  right- 
eousness inherent,  by  which  sin  is  expelled. — p.  82. 

"  The  Papists,  by  remission  of  sin,  understand  the  expulsion  or 
extinction,  the  utter  deletion  or  abolition  of  sin,  which  is  not  a  distinct 
action  (as  they  teach)  from  infusion  of  righteousness,  but  one  and  the 
same  action,  which  is  the  infusion  of  righteousness  expelling  sin. 
And  is  an  action  of  God,  not  without  us  as  the  other,  but  within  us, 
working  in  us  a  real  and  positive  change.  And  therefore  remission 
of  sin  in  the  Popish  sense,  belongeth  not  to  justification,  but  to  perfect 
sanctification,  as  being  a  total  mortification  of  sin,  which  none  attain 
unto  in  this  life;  but  of  this  point  I  have  already  treated  in  the  second 
question  of  the  first  controversy.  Secondly,  the  Fathers  ofientimes 
use  the  word  justification  in  the  same  sense  that  we  do  according  to 
the  Scriptures,  as  implying  the  forgiveness  of  sins,  and  acceptation 
unto  life  by  the  satisfaction  and  merits  of  Christ  communicated  unto 
us.  As  namely,  when  they  teach,  as  very  oft  they  do,  that  we  are 
justified  by  faith  alone;  which  they  could  not  have  taught,  if  by  jus- 
tifying they  had  meant  sanctifying;  for  we  are  not  sanctified  by  faith 
alone,  as  all  confess.  Thirdly,  the  Fathers  did  not  look  to  be  justi- 
fied before  God  by  any  righteousness  inherent  in  themselves  or  per- 
formed by  them,  but  renounced  it,  as  being  unperfect  and  stained 


485 


with  the  flesh.  And  therefore  where  they  speak  of  justification  by- 
inherent  righteousness,  ihey  meant  sanctification,  and  not  justification 
before  God,  whereof  our  question  is.  For  they  profess  that  by  in- 
herent righteousness,  no  man  living  can  be  justified  in  God's  sight, 
as  I  have  showed  in  this  third  controversy,  and  in  the  fifth  and  sixth, 
—p.  25S. 

Whereas,  they  deride  imputed  justice,  calling  it  putafitiam,  as  if 
it  were  an  imaginary  righteousness  only  ;  which  also,  they  say,  doth 
both  derogate  from  the  Glory  of  God,  to  whom  it  were  more  honor- 
able to  make  a  man  truly  righteous,  than  to  repute  him  righteous, 
who,  in  himself  is  wicked,  and  also  detract  from  the  honour  of  Christ's 
Spouse,  who  is  only  arrayed  with  her  Husband's  righteousness,  as 
it  were  a  garment  being  in  herself  deformed ;  I  answer  first,  whom 
the  Lord  doth  justify,  he  doth  indeed  and  in  truth,  constitute  and 
make  them  righteous  by  imputing  unto  them  the  righteousness  of 
Christ,  no  less  truly  and  really,  than  either  x\dam's  sin  was  imputed 
to  us,  or  our  sins  to  Christ,  for  which  he  really  sufTered.  Secondly, 
whom  God  justifieth  or  maketh  righteous  by  imputation,  them  also 
he  sanctifieth,  or  maketh  righteous  by  infusion  of  a  righteousness  be- 
gun in  this  life,  and  to  be  perfected  when  this  mortal  life  is  ended. 
And  further,  that  it  is  much  more  for  the  glory  both  of  God's  justice 
and  of  his  mercy,  when  he  justifieth  sinners,  both  to  make  them  per- 
fectly righteous  by  imputation  of  Christ's  righteousness  ;  and  also 
having  freed  them  from  hell  by  the  perfect  satisfaction  of  his  Son, 
and  entitled  them  to  the  kingdom  of  Heaven  by  his  perfect  obedience; 
to  prepare  and  to  fit  ihem  for  his  own  kingdom,  by  beginning  a  right- 
eousness inherent  in  them,  which  by  degrees  groweth  towards  per- 
fection in  this  life,  and  shall  be  fully  perfected  so  soon  as  this  life  is 
ended,  rather  than  to  justify,  or  to  speak  more  properly  to  sanctify 
them  only  by  a  righteousness  which  is  unperfect  and  but  begun, 
which  in  justice  can  neither  satisfy  for  their  sins,  nor  merit  eternal 
life.— p.  290. 

"The  Papists  do  not  only  hold  that  justifying  faith  may  be  with- 
out knowledge,  but  that  also  it  may  better  be  defined  by  ignorance 
than  by  knowledge.  This  faith,  which  is  without  knowledge,  they 
call  implicit  faith  ;  because  they  believing  some  one  common  princi- 
ple as  namely,  I  believe  the  holy  Catholic  Church  do  thereby  be- 
lieve  implicite,  whatsoever  is  to  be  believed,  that  is,  whatsoever  the 
Catholic  Church  believeth  and  propoundeth  to  be  believed.  And 


486 

therefore  this  they  call  also  an  entire  faith;  because  thereby,  a  man 
doth  not  only  believe  the  written  word,  but  also  unwritten  verities, 
which  are  the  traditions  of  the  Church  of  Rome,  and  both  of  them, 
not  for  themselves,  but  for  the  authority  of  the  Church  propounding 
them  to  be  believed. — p-  315. 

"The  other  question  is,  whether  faith  doth  justify  formally,  as 
they  speak,  as  being  a  part  of  inherent  righteousness  ;  or  instrument- 
ally  only,  as  the  hand  to  receive  Christ  who  is  our  righteousness. 
The  Roman  Catholics  hold  the  former ;  the  true  Catholics,  the  latter. 
But  the  former  I  have  sufficiently  disproved  before,  and  proved  the 
latter.  For  if  we  be  not  justified  by  any  grace  or  righteousness  in- 
herent in  ourselves,  or  performed  by  ourselves,  which  1  have  before 
by  many  undeniable  arguments  demonstrated  ;  then  it  followeth  ne- 
cessarily, that  we  are  not  justified  by  faith,  as  it  is  a  gift  of  grace,  an 
act,  or  habit,  or  quality  inherent  in  us,  or  performed  by  us.  And  if 
we  be  justified  by  the  righteousness  of  Christ  only,  which  being  out 
of  us  in  him  is  imputed  to  those  who  receive  it  by  faith,  which  also 
before  1  invincibly  proved  ,*  then  also  it  followeth  by  necessary  con- 
sequence, that  we  are  justified  by  faith,  only  as  it  is  the  instrument 
or  hand  to  apprehend  or  receive  Christ,  who  is  our  righteousness. 
Wherefore  where  faith  is  said  to  justify,  or  to  be  imputed  to  righteous- 
ness, it  must  of  necessity  be  understood  relatively,  and  in  respect  of 
the  object,  to  which  purpose,  justification  and  all  other  benefits,  which 
we  receive  by  Christ,  are  attributed  to  faith,  as  I  have  showed  be- 
fore. Not  that  faith  itself  worketh  these  things,  but  because  by  it  we 
receive  Christ,  and  with  him,  all  his  merits  and  benefits.  And  for 
the  same  cause,  the  faith  of  all  the  faithful,  though  unequal  in  de- 
grees, in  some  greater,  and  in  some  less,  is  alike  precious  in  the 
righteousness  of  God  and  our  Saviour  Jesus  Christ,  2  Pet.  i,  1, 
which  is  an  evidence,  that  faith  doth  not  justify  in  respect  of  its  own 
dignity  or  worthiness,  but  in  respect  of  the  object,  which  it  doth  re- 
ceive; which  being  the  most  perfect  righteousness  of  Christ,  unto 
which  nothing  can  be  added,  is  one  and  the  same  to  all  that  receive  it. 

"  Here  now  the  Papists,  because  we  deny  faith  to  justify  in  respect 
of  its  own  worthiness  and  merit,  take  occasion  to  inveigh  against  us, 
as  if  we  made  it,  Tituhum  sine  re,  and  as  it  were  a  matter  of  nothing, 
which  is  a  malicious,  and  yet  but  a  frivolous  cavil.  For  first  in  re- 
spect of  justification  ;  we  acknowledge  it  to  be  the  only  instrument  or 
hand  to  receive  Christ,  to  be  the  condition  of  the  Covenant  of  Grace, 


4S7 


to  which  the  promises  of  remission  of  sins  and  of  salvation  are  made, 
without  which  the  promises  of  the  gospel  do  not  appertain  unto  us, 
and  without  which  our  blessed  saviour  doth  not  save  us.  Secondly, 
in  respect  of  Sanctificalion,  we  attribute  all  that  and  more,  which  the 
Papists  ascribe  unto  it,  in  respect  of  their  imaginary  justification. 
That  it  is  the  beginning,  foundation,  and  root  of  all  inherent  right- 
eousness; the  mother  of  all  other  sanctifying  graces,  which  purifieih 
the  heart,  and  worketh  by  love,  without  which,  it  is  impossible  to 
please  God,  without  which,  whatsoever  is  done  is  sin. 

"  Yet,  howsoever,  here  the  Papists  would  seem  to  plead  for  faith, 
yet  the  truth  is,  that  as  they  have  abolished  the  benefit  of  justification, 
as  it  is  taught  in  the  holy  Scriptures,  so  with  it,  they  have  taken 
away  the  justifying  faiih.  For  though  they  retain  the  name,  yet  in 
their  doctrine  there  is  no  such  thing.  For  first,  to  faith  they  do  not 
ascribe  the  power  to  justify,  but  only  to  be  a  disposition,  one  among 
seven,  even  such  a  one  as  servile  tear  is,  of  a  man  unto  inherent 
righteousness,  or  to  the  grace  of  sanctification,  itself  being  not  as  yet 
a  justifying  or  sanctifying  grace.  Secondly,  that  faith,  being  iniused, 
becomeih  the  beginning,  and  a  pan  of  formal  inherent  righteousness. 
But  so  small  a  part  they  assign  unto  it,  that  they  say,  that  the  habit 
of  tbrmal  righteousness  ditfereth  not  from  the  habit  of  charity ;  so 
that  in  justification  it  hath  no  use  at  all,  and  in  sanctificalion,  charily 
is  all  in  all ;  which  is  a  manifest  evidence,  that  the  Church  of  Rome 
is  fallen  away  trom  the  ancient  doctrine  of  the  faith.  For  both  Scrip- 
tures and  Fathers,  everywhere  ascribe  justification  to  faith  and  not 
to  charily  ;  to  faith,  and  not  to  works ;  but  the  Papists  ascribe  the 
first  justification  to  charity,  which  they  make  to  be  the  only  formal 
cause  of  justification,  which  as  themselves  teach,  is  but  one;  and  the 
second  justincalion  they  assign  to  works. — p.  369. 

ANDREWES,  BISHOP. 

This  great  divine  is  called  in  Oxford  Tracts,  ^'one 
of  our  wisest  doctors  and  rid^:rs." — Xo.  71.  p.  '26.  Am. 
Ed.  The  following  is  from  his  Sermon  on  Justifi- 
cation, on  the  text  Jehovah  our  righteousness. 

**  That  it  is  our  righteousness,  in  the  abstract;  and  not  in  the 
concrete;  not  our  justifier  or  maker  of  us  righteous,  but  our  justice 
or  righteousness  itself. 


488 


"  For  thus  delivered,  I  make  no  doubt  it  hath  more  efficacy  in  it; 
and  more  significant  it  is  by  far  to  say  Jehovah  our  Justice,  than 
Jehovah  our  Justifier,  I  know  St.  Paul  saith  much :  That  our 
Saviour  Christ  shed  his  blood,  to  show  his  righteousness,  that  he 
might  not  only  be  just,  but  a  justijier  of  those  which  are  of  his 
faith.  And  much  more  again  in  that  when  he  should  have  said, 
» To  him  that  believeth  in  God,'  he  chooseth  thus  to  set  it  down,  to 
him  that  believeth  in  him,  that  justifielh  the  ungodly:  making  these 
two  to  be  all  one;  God,  and  the  Justifier  of  sinners.  Though  this 
be  very  much,  yet  certainly  this  is  most  forcible,  that  he  is  made 
unto  us,  by  God,  very  righteousness  itself  And  that  yet  more: 
that  he  is  made  righteousness  to  us,  that  we  be  made  the  righte- 
ousness of  God  in  him,  which  place  St.  Chrysostome,  well  weigh- 
ing, this  very  word,  (saith  he)  the  Apostle  useth  to  express  the  un- 
speakable bounty  of  that  gift,  that  he  hath  not  given  us  the  opera- 
tion or  effect  of  righteousness,  but  his  very  righteousness,  yea,  his 
very  self  unto  us.  '  Mark  (saith  he)  how  every  thing  is  lively,  and 
as  full  as  can  be  imagined.  Christ,  who  not  only  that  had  done  no 
sin,  but  that  had  not  so  much  as  known  any  sin,  hath  God  made 
(not  a  sinner,  but)  sin  itself,  as  in  another  place  (not  accursed, 
but)  a  curse  itself :  sin,  in  respect  of  the  guilt,  a  curse,  in  respect 
of  the  punishment.  And  why  this?  To  the  end  that  we  might 
be  made,  (not  righteous  persons;  that  was  not  full  enough,  but) 
righteousness  itself:  and  not  every  righteousness,  but  the  very 
righteousness  of  God  Himself  What  can  be  further  said;  what 
can  be  conceived  more  comfortable?  To  have  him  ours,  not  to 
make  us  righteous,  but  to  make  us  righteousness,  and  that  not  any 
other  but  the  righteousness  of  God.  The  wit  of  man  can  devise  no 
more.  And  all  to  this  end:  that  we  might  see  there  belongeth  a 
special  Ecce  to  this  name;  that  there  is  more  than  ordinary  comfort 
in  it :  that  therefore  we  should  be  careful  to  honour  him  with  it,  and 
to  call  him  by  it;  Jehovah  our  Righteousness. 

"  There  is  no  Christian  man  that  will  deny  this  name,  but  will  call 
Christ  by  it,  and  say  of  him,  that  he  is  Jehovah  Justitia  nostra, 
without  taking  a  syllable  or  letter  from  it :  but  it  is  not  the  syllables, 
but  the  sense  that  maketh  the  name;  and  the  sense  is  it,  we  are  to 
look  unto :  that  we  keep  it  entire  in  sense  as  well  as  in  sound,  if  we 
mean  to  preserve  this  name  of  our  Righteousness  full  and  whole 
unto  him.    And  as  this  is  true,  so  is  it  true  likewise,  that  even 


489 


among  Christians,  al!  take  it  not  in  one  sense;  but  some,  of  a  greater 
latitude  than  others.  There  are  that  take  it  in  that  sense  which  the 
Prophet  Esay  hath  set  down  :  In  Jehovah  Justitia  mea,  that  all 
our  righteousness  is  in  him,  and  we  to  be  found  in  him  not  having 
our  own  righteousness,  but  being  made  the  righteousness  of  God 
in  him.  There  are  some  other,  that  though  in  one  part,  of  our 
righteousness  they  take  it  in  that  sense;  yet  in  another  part,  they 
shrink  it  up^  and  in  that,  make  it  but  a  proposition  casual,  and  the 
interpretation  thereof  to  be,  A  Jehovah  justitia  mea^from  Jehovah 
is  my  righteousness :  which  is  true  too.  First,  whether  we  respect 
him  as  the  cause  exemplary^  or  pattern,  (for  we  are  to  be  made 
conformable  to  the  image  of  Christ),  Second,  whether  we  respect 
him  as  the  cause  efficient.  This  meaning  is  true  and  good  ;  but  not 
full  enough.  For  either  it  taketh  the  name  in  sunder,  and  giveth 
him  not  all,  but  a  part  of  it  again;  or  else,  it  maketh  two  senses, 
which  may  not  be  allowed  in  one  name. 

"  For  the  more  plain  conceiving  of  which  point,  we  are  to  be  put 
in  mind,  that  the  true  righteousness  (as  saith  St.  Paul)  is  not  of  man's 
device,  but  hath  his  witness  from  the  Law  and  Prophets,  which  he 
there  proceedeth  to  shew  out,  of  the  example,  first  of  Abraham,  and 
after  of  David.  In  the  Scripture  then  there  is  a  double  righte- 
ousness set  down,  both  in  the  Old  and  in  the  New  Testament. 
In  the  Old,  and  in  the  very  first  place  that  Righteousness  is  named 
in  the  Bible:  'Abraham  believed,  and  it  was  accounted  unto 
him  for  righteousness.'  A  righteousness  accounted!  And  again, 
(in  the  very  next  line)  it  is  mentioned,  '  Abraham  will  teach  his 
house  to  do  righteousness.^  A  righteousness  done.'  In  the  New 
Testament,  likewise.  The  former,  in  one  chapter,  (Rom.  iv.)  no 
fewer  than  eleven  times ;  Reputatum  est  illi  ad  justitiam — '//  is 
acccounted  to  him  for  righteousness ' — a  reputed  righteousness  ! 
The  latter  in  St.  John — '  He  that  doeth  righteousness,  is  righteous' 
— a  righteousness  done!  Of  these,  the  latter.  Philosophers  them- 
selves conceived,  and  acknowledged;  the  other  is  proper  to  Chris- 
tians only,  and  altogether  unknown  in  Philosophy.  The  one  is  a 
quality  of  the  party.  The  other  an  act  of  the  Judge  declaring  or 
pronouncing  righteous.  The  one,  ours  by  influence  or  infusion; 
the  other,  by  account  or  imputation.    That  both  these  there  are, 

THERE  IS  NO  QUESTION." 

•62 


490 


The  Bishop  then  says  the  question  is,  *'  whether  of  these  two 
righteousnesses,  the  Prophet  principally  meaneth  in  this  name — 
whether,  (he  says,)  it  is  the  righteousness  that  will  stand  against  the 
Law^  or  conscience,  Satan,  sin,  the  gates  of  hell,  and  the  power  of 
darkness  ;  and  so  stand,  that  we  may  be  delivered  by  it,  from  death, 
despair  and  damnation  ;  and  entitled,  by  it,  to  life,  salvation,  and 
happiness  eternal ;  that  is  righteousness  indeed ;  that  is  it  we  seek 
for,  if  we  may  find  it ;  and  that  is  not  this  latter,  (righteousness  in- 
fused) but  the  former  only,  (righteousness  imputed,)  and  therefore 
this  is  the  true  interpretation  of  ^Jehovah  our  Righteousness.'''''' 

"  And  indeed  to  do  them  no  wrong,  it  is  true,  that  at  his  judg- 
ment seat,  so  far  as  it  concernelh  the  satisfaction  for  sin,  and  our 
escaping  from  eternal  death,  the  Church  of  Rome  taketh  this  name 
aright ; — and  that  term  which  a  great  while  seemeth  harsh  unto 
them,  now  they  find  no  such  absurdity  in  it.  That  ChrisVs  rightS' 
ousness  and  merits  are  imputed  to  us. 

"  Thus  they  understand  this  name,  in  that  part  of  righteousness, 
which  is  satisfactory  for  'punishment. 

But  in  the  positive  justice,  or  that  part  thereof,  which  is  meri- 
torious for  reward  ;  there  fall  they  into  a  phantasy  ;  they  may  give 
it  over  ;  and  suppose,  that  a  righteousness  (from  God,  they  grant 
yet)  inherent  in  themselves,  without  a  righteousness  that  is  in  Christ, 
will  serve  them,  whereof  they  have  a  good  conceit,  that  it  will  en- 
dure God's  jws/ice  ;  and  standeth  not  by  acceptation.  So  by  this 
means,  shrink  they  up  the  name  Jehovah  our  righteousness ;  and 
though  they  leave  the  full  sound,  yet  take  they  half  the  sense  from 
it.  This  nipping  at  the  name  of  Christ  is  for  no  other  reason,  but 
that  we  may  have  some  honour  ourselves,  out  of  owr  own  rigtheous- 
ness.^^ — Andrewes'  Sermons,  pp.  724 — 726 

"As  from  the  Brazen  Serpent  no  virtue  issued  to  heal,  but  unto 
them  that  steadily  beheld  it — so  neither  doth  there  from  Christ,  but 
upon  those,  that  with  the  eye  of  faith,  have  their  contemplation  on 
this  object,  who  thereby  draw  life  from  him;  and  without  it  may 
and  do  perish,  for  all  Christ's  passion." — Sermon  p.  222. 

*  Our  eye  then,  is  the  eye  of  our  mind,  which  is  faith  :  our  look- 
ing to  him  here,  is  our  thinking  on  him  there;  and  him  and  his  pas- 
sion over  and  over  again.  Donee  totus  fixus  in  corde,  qui  lotus  f  xus 
in  Cruce,  till  he  be  as  fast  fixed  in  our  hearts,  as  ever  he  was  to  his 


491 


Cross  ;  and  the  same  impression  made  m  us  of  him,  as  there  was  in 
him  for  us."— p.  242. 

*'  There  is  a  theory  medicinal,  like  that  of  the  Brazen  Serpent  ; 
and  it  serveth  for  comfort  to  the  conscience  stung  and  wounded  with 
the  remorse  of  sin.  For,  what  sin  is  there  or  can  there  be  so  execra- 
ble or  accursed  but  the  curse  of  the  cross;  what  so  ignominious  or 
full  of  confusion  but  the  shame  of  it,  what  so  corrosive  to  the  con- 
science but  the  pain  of  it ;  what  of  so  deep  or  so  crimson  a  dye,  but 
the  blood  of  it,  the  blood  of  the  cross  will  do  it  away  ?  What  sting  so 
deadly,  but  the  sight  of  this  serpent  will  cure  it? 

"  And  sure  as  the  Church  under  the  Law  needed  not,  so  neither 
doth  the  Church  under  the  Gospel  need  any  other  precept  than  this 
one,  Inspice  etfac,  see  and  do,  according  to  the  theory  shewed  thee 
in  the  Mount.  To  them  in  Mount  Sinai ;  to  us  in  Mount  Calvary." 
—p.  243. 

"Now,  if  faith  be  to  touch,  that  will  touch  him  no  less  in  heaven 
than  here.  One  that  is  in  heaven  may  be  touched  so — no  ascend- 
ing can  hinder  that  touch.  Faith  will  elevate  itself,  that  ascending 
in  spirit,  we  shall  touch  him,  and  take  hold  of  him.  It  is  a  touch, 
to  which  there  is  never  a  noli :  fear  it  not. 

*'  So  do  we  then,  send  up  our  faith,  and  that  shall  touch  him,  and 
there  will  virtue  come  from  him  ;  and  it  shall  take  such  hold  on 
him,  as  it  shall  raise  us  up  to  where  he  is,  bring  us  to  the  end  of  the 
verse,  and  to  the  end  of  all  our  desires  ;  to  a  joyful  ascension  to  our 
Father  and  his,  and  to  Himself,  and  to  the  unity  of  the  Blessed 
Spirit."— p.  367. 

"  So  was  it  meet  for  crimson  sinners  to  have  a  crimson  Saviour  : 
a  Saviour  of  such  a  colour  it  behoved  us  to  have.  Coming  then  to 
save  us, — off  went  his  white,  on  went  our  red :  laid  by,  his  own 
righteousness,  to  be  clothed  with  our  sin.  He  to  wear  our  colours, 
that  we,  his — he  in  our  red,  that  we,  in  his  white.  So  we  find  our 
robes  are  not  only  washed  clean,  but  dyed  a  pitre  white  in  the  blood 
of  the  La7n6."— p.  3G7. 

*'  Of  all  the  words  in  the  text,  not  one  was  meet  for  the  teeth  of 
the  Rhemits,  save  this  only  :  here  you  have  a  perilous  note  close  in 
the  margin  :  Good  works  are  a  foundation.  A  Foundation,  very 
true,  who  denies  it?  but  whether  a  foundation  in  our  graces,  as 
Christ  is  without  us,  that  is  the  point.  The  ground  whereon  every 
building  is  raised,  is  termed  fundamentum.    The  lowest  part  of  the 


492 


building  immediately  lying  on  it,  is  so  termed  too.  In  the  first 
sense  Christ  is  said  to  be  the  only  foundation  :  yet  the  Apostles, 
because  they  are  the  lowest  row  of  stones,  are  said  to  he  foundations 
in  the  second.  So  among  the  graces  within  us,  faith  is  properly  in 
the  first  sense,  said  to  be  the  foundation  ;  yet  in  the  second,  we  do 
not  deny,  but  as  the  Apostle  callelh  them,  as  the  lowest  row  next 
to  faith,  charity  and  the  works  of  charity  may  be  called  founda- 
tions too.  Albeit,  the  margin  might  well  have  been  spared  at  this 
place ;  for  the  note  is  here,  all  out  of  place.  For  being  so  great 
schoolmen  as  they  would  seem,  they  must  needs  know,  it  is  not  the 
drift  of  the  Apostle  here,  in  calling  them  di  foundation,  to  carry  our 
considerations  into  the  mdiWei^  justifying,  but  only  to  press  his 
former  reasons  of  uncertainty  there,  by  a  contrary  weight  of  certain 
stability  here,  and  so  their  note  comes  in  like  Magnificat  at  Matins'^^ 
—p.  693. 

*'  If  you  shall  have  grace  to  make  use  of  God*s  plot,  which  he 
hath  here  levelled  for  you  to  raise  upon,  that  will  be  worth  all  the 
world  in  that  day:  the  perfect  certainty,  sound  knowledge,  and  pre- 
cious assurance  you  shall  then  have  whereby  you  shall  be  assured 
to  be  received,  because  you  are  sure  you  are  Christ's,  because  you 
are  sure  you  have  true  faith,  because  you  are  sure  you  have  framed 
it  upon  good  works.  And  so  shall  they  be  a  foundation  to  you- ward, 
hy  making  evident  the  assurance  of  salvation:  not,  to  God-ward^ 
in  bringing  forth  the  essence  of  your  salvation.'''' — p.  693. 

JOSEPH  MEDE,  B.  D. 

This  profoundly  learned  and  eminently  pious  di- 
vine of  the  17th  Century,  so  well  known  for  his 
works  on  the  Prophecies,  was  an  intimate  friend  of 
Dr.  Jackson  and  Bishop  Andre wes.  In  the  31st  of 
his  published  Discourses,  on  Matt.  xi.  28,  29,  we 
read : 

*'  This  coming  unto  Christ,  is  the  approaching  unto  him  hy  faith; 
which  is  manifested  by  those  places  of  Scripture  where  coming  and 
believing  are  interchangeably  used  as  one  and  the  same  thing.  ^He 
that  cometh  to  me  shall  never  hunger;  he  that  believeth  on  me  shall 
never  thirst.^    Here  coming  is  expounded  by  believing. 

*'  Here  therefore  observe  that  a  saving  faith,  a  faith  which 


493 


makes  Christ  our  own,  and  hath  promise  of  ease  by  him,  in  a  word, 
that  faith  which  gives  us  an  interest  in  Christ  Jesus,  is  more  than  a 
bare  assent,  or  persuasion  that  the  Gospel  is  true. — It  is  a  coming 
belief,  a  coming  faith;  that  is  an  assent  inclining  the  soul  to  Christ, 
to  be  made  partaker  of  the  benefits  through  him — such  an  assent  as 
not  only  believes  the  promises  made  in  Christ,  but  goes  unto  him, 
relies  upon  him,  clings  unto  him  for  them.  Saving  faith,  though  it 
begins  with  what  is  usually  called  historical  faith,  yet  it  stays  not 
there.  It  stands  not  only  gazing  upon  Christ,  but  is  effectual  and 
powerful  upon  the  soul  to  make  it  apply  and  betake  itself  unto  him. 

*'  The  motion  or  flight  of  the  soul  is  desire.  He  that  out  of  a 
true  sense  and  feeling  of  his  sin  (for  no  other  can  do  it  in  good  ear- 
nest) desires  Christ,  he  goes  unto  him.  And  Christ  requires  no 
more,  but  that  all  those  who  are  weary  and  heavy  laden,  should  thus 
come  unto  him,  and  he  will  ease  them.  And  this  is  the  first  degree 
of  a  faith  which  \s  justifying,  and  gives  interest  in  Christ  Jesus; 
for  this  faith  is  not  barely  historical  and  in  speculation  but  dL  faith 
in  motion,  and  able  to  walk  and  to  go  unto  Christ  Jesus,  whom  it 
believeth ;  which,  if  cherished,  will  in  time  gather  such  further 
strength  as  will  fill  the  soul  with  a  full  and  stedfast  confidence. 

"  Now  follows  the  benefit,  ease  and  rest  to  thy  soul.  ''I will  give 
you  rest;^  that  is,  I  will  ease  you  of  your  sin,  I  will  acquit  you. 
And  this  is  what  we  call  justification  of  a  sinner,  which  is  an  abso- 
lution or  remission  of  sins,  by  the  only  merits  and  satisfaction  of 
Christ,  accepted  for  us  and  imputed  to  us :  an  acquitting  and  can- 
celling of  all  bonds  and  obligations  of  transgression  for  Christ's  sake. 
For  he  that  hath  right  to  Christ,  hath  right  in  Christ,  to  be  partaker 
of  his  righteousness  and  of  whatsoever  satisfaction  he  hath  undergone 
for  the  sins  of  mankind;  whereby  he  is  justified,  that  is  acquit 
before  God  of  the  guilt  of  sin  and  of  the  punishment,  according  to  the 
Law  due  for  the  same. 

"As  in  coming  unto  Christ,  you  had  faith  in  the  ease  by  him, 
acquittal  or  justification ;  so  in  the  taking  his  yoke,  ye  have  sane- 
tification  or  holiness  of  life.  All  which  are  so  linked  together,  that 
neither  must  they,  nor  can  they  be  put  asunder.  No  man  comes 
to  Christ  by  faith,  but  shall  be  eased ;  but  no  man  can  ever  truly 
and  seriously  come  unto  him  to  be  eased  by  him,  but  he  must  take 
his  yoke  upon  him.  No  man  puts  on  Christ  to  be  justified,  but  he 
takes  on  his  yoke  also  to  be  sanctified.    True  it  is,  and  nothing 


494 


more  true,  that  no  works  of  ours  in  this  life  can  abide  the  touch-stone 
of  God's  law,  and  therefore  not  able  to  justify  us  in  the  presence  of 
God  but  to  condemn  us.  But  it  is  true  also  that  we  are  therefore 
justified  through  faith  in  the  blood  and  righteousness  of  Christ,  that 
in  him  we  might  do  works  pleasing  and  acceptable  to  Almighty 
God,  which  out  of  him  we  could  not  do.  For  as  the  blood  and  suf- 
ferings of  Christ,  imputed  to  us,  through  Hiith,  cleanseth  us  and  ac- 
quitteth  us  of  all  the  sins  whereof  we  stood  guilty  before  we  believed  ; 
so  the  imputation  of  his  righteousness,  when  we  believe,  makes 
our  works  (though  of  themselves  far  short  of  what  they  ought  to  be, 
yet)  to  be  acceptable  and  just  in  the  eyes  of  the  Almighty;  Christ 
supplying  out  of  his  riches,  our  poverty,  and  by  communication  of 
his  obedience,  continually  perfecting  ours  where  we  fail,  that  so  we 
might  receive  the  reward  of  the  righteous  of  him  that  shall  reward 
every  man  according  to  his  works. 

"Unto  whomsoever  Christ  is  given  for  justification,  through  the 
imputation  of  his  merits  and  righteousness,  in  him  God  creates  a  new 
heart  and  reneweth  a  right  spirit.''^ — Mode's  Works,  pp.  154—157. 

HALL,  BISHOP. 

*'  That  there  is  an  inherent  righteousness  in  us  is  no  less  certain, 
than  that  it  is  wrought  in  us  by  the  Holy  Ghost.  For  God  doth  not 
justify  the  wicked  man,  as  such  ;  but  of  wicked,  makes  him  good, 
not  by  mere  acceptation,  but  by  a  real  change ;  while  he  justifies 
him  whom  he  sanctifies.  These  two  acts  of  mercy  are  inseparable ; 
but  this  justice  being  wrought  in  us  by  the  Holy  Spirit — is  not  so 
perfect  that  it  can  bear  us  out  before  the  tribunal  of  God.  It  must 
be  only  under  the  garment  of  our  elder  Brother  that  we  dare  come 
in  for  a  blessing:  his  righteousness  made  ours  by  faith  is  that  where- 
by we  are  justified  in  the  sight  of  God  ;  this  doctrine  is  that  which  is 
blasted  with  a  tridentine  curse." 

"  It  is  not  the  logic  of  this  point  we  strive  for — it  is  not  the  gram- 
mar, it  is  the  divinity:  what  that  is  whereby  we  stand  acquitted  be- 
fore the  Righteous  Judge;  whether  our  inherent  justice  or  Christ's 
imputed  justice  apprehended  by  faith.  The  Divines  of  Trent  are 
for  the  former  :  all  antiquity  with  us  for  the  latter.  A  just  volume 
would  scarce  contain  the  pregnant  testimonies  of  the  Fathers  to  this 
purpose."* 


»  Works,  8vo.  ix.  pp.  238—240. 


495 


"  Scripture  every  where  teacheth  as,  on  the  one  side,  the  imper- 
fection of  our  inherent  righteousness;  so,  on  the  other,  our  perfect 
justification  by  the  imputed  righteousness  of  our  Saviour,  brought 
home  to  us  by  faith. 

"  The  latter  is  the  sum  of  St.  Paul's  Sermon  at  Antioch :  '  Be  it 
known  unto  you,  men  and  brethren,  that  through  this  man  is 
preached  to  you  forgiveness  of  sins;  and,  by  him,  all,  that  believe, 
are  justified.'  They  are  justified  :  but  how  ?  '  Freely,  by  his  grace.' 
What  Grace?  Inherent  in  us,  and  working  by  us?  No  :  '  By  grace 
are  ye  saved,  through  faith,  and  that  not  of  yourselves,  it  is  the  gift 
of  God.'  'Not  of  works,  lest  any  man  should  boast.'  Works  are 
ours;  but  this  is  '  righteousness  of  God,  which  is  by  the  faith  of  Jesus 
Christ  to  all  them  that  believe.'  And  how  doth  this  become  ours? 
By  his  gracious  imputation.  '  Not  to  him  that  worketh,  but  believeth 
on  him  who  justifieth  the  wicked,  is  his  faith  imputed  for  righteous- 
ness.' 

"  Lo,  it  is  not  the  act,  not  the  habit  of  faith,  that  justifieth:  it  is 
He  that  justifies  the  wicked,  whom  our  faith  makes  ours,  and  our 
sin  his.  '  He  was  made  sin  for  us,  that  we  might  be  made  righte- 
ousness of  God  in  him.'  Lo,  so  were  we  made  his  righteous- 
ness :  as  he  was  made  our  sin.  Imputation  doeth  both.  It  is  that, 
which  enfeofis  our  sins  upon  Christ,  and  us  in  his  righteousness; 
which  both  cures  and  redresses  the  imperfection  of  ours.  That  dis- 
tinction is  clear  and  full.  '  That  I  may  be  found  in  him,  not  having 
mine  own  righteousness,  which  is  of  the  law,  but  that  which  is 
through  the  faith  of  Christ,  the  righteousness  which  is  of  God  by 
faith.'  St.  Paul  was  a  great  saint :  he  had  a  righteousness  of  his 
own;  not  as  a  Pharisee  only,  but  as  an  Apostle;  but  that  which  he 
dares  not  tru^-t  to,  but  forsakes,  and  cleaves  to  God's — not  that  essen- 
tial righteousness,  which  is  in  God,  without  all  relation  to  us  ;  nor 
that  habit  of  justice,  which  was  ^•3maining  in  him  ;  but  that  righteous- 
ness which  is,  of  God,  by  faith  made  ours. 

"  Thus,  '  being  justified  by  faith,  we  have  peace  with  God,  through 
our  Lord  Jesus  Christ.'  For  what  can  break  that  peace,  but  our 
sins?  and  these  are  remitted;  for  'who  shall  lay  any  thing  lo  the 
charge  of  God's  elect?  It  is  God  that  justifieth.'  And,  in  that  re- 
mission, is  grounded  our  reconciliation  ;  »  for  God  was  in  Christ,  re- 
conciling the  world  to  himself,  not  imputing  their  sins  unto  them;' 


496 


but  conlrarily,  imputing  to  them  his  own  righteousness,  and  their 
faith  for  righteousness. 

"Let  the  vain  sophistry  of  carnal  minds  deceive  itself  with  idle 
subtleties,  and  seek  to  elude  the  plain  truth  of  God  with  shifts  of  wit. 
We  bless  God  for  so  clear  a  light,  and  dare  cast  our  souls  upon  this 
sure  evidence  of  God,  attended  with  the  perpetual  attestation  of  his 
ancient  Church."— ^aZZ's  Works,  8  vo.  ix.  242—244. 

NICHOLSON,  BISHOP  OF  GLOUCESTER. 

This  learned  divine  was  made  Bishop  of  Glouces- 
ter in  1660.  While  Archdeacon  of  Brecon,  he  pub- 
lished a  series  of  discourses  on  the  Apostles  Creed, 
from  which  the  following  extracts  are  made ;  a  work 
of  the  soundest  divinity,  and  of  a  vigorous  style. 
During  the  storm  under  which  the  Church  of  Eng- 
land was  so  cast  down  in  the  earlier  part  of  the  cen- 
tury, he  was  one  of  her  faithful  defenders ;  and  after 
it  had  passed,  one  of  her  brightest  ornaments.  His 
works  (says  Nelson  in  his  life  of  Bishop  Bull,)  show 
him  to  have  been  a  person  of  great  learning,  piety, 
and  prudence,  particularly  his  Apology  for  the  Dis- 
cipline of  the  Ancient  Church,  and  his  Exposition  of 
the  Apostles  Creed.  Not  only  for  his  knowledge  of 
the  Fathers  and  Schoolmen,  but  also  for  the  great 
share  of  critical  learning  whereof  he  was  master;"  he 
was  much  consulted  by  Mr.  Bull,  afterwards  Bishop 
Bull,  who,  while  engaged  in  his  Harmonia,  was  a 
Presbyter  of  the  Diocese  of  Gloucester. 

"  By  righteousness  we  are  to  understand,  1.  That  which  is  in- 
herent. 2.  Then  that  which  is  imputed.  The  inherent  is  innperfect, 
proportionable  to  our  estate,  consisting  in  true  sanctification  and  holi- 
ness, enabling  a  man  to  mortify  his  sins  and  lusts,  and  to  bring  forth 
the  fruits  of  repentance,  and  to  beautify  his  soul  with  the  virtues  of 
faith,  hope,  and  charity  ;  so  that  there  be  none  truly  (X'Tng-s*?,  but  they 


497 


who  are  anrsiesig,  none  unbelievers  but  the  disobedient.  And  happy 
is  the  soul  that  hungers  and  thirsts  after  this  righteousness. 

"  But  because  this  righteousness,  in  what  degree  soever,  is  imper- 
fect, necessary  it  is,  that  we  hunger  and  thirst  after  another,  which  is 
the  righteousness  of  Christ  arising  out  of  his  obedience,  whereby  he 
fulfilled  the  law,  and  satisfied  the  punishment  in  his  life,  and  in  his 
death  for  us  ;  which  obedience  both  merited  the  remission  of  our  sins, 
and  effectually  wrought  the  righteousness  of  the  law,  and  acceptation 
of  our  persons  in  Christ.  For  the  deriving  whereof  to  us,  two  things 
must  be  done,  one  in  God's  behalf,  the  other  in  ours. 

"That  which  God  doth,  is  called  imputation  ;  that  which  we  do, 
is  called,  believing  in  Christ,  and  so  receiving  that  which  God  of- 
fereth.  And  happy  is  that  soul  to  whom  this  righteousness  is  im- 
puted." 

"  To  cleanse  us  from  all  iniquity.  It  is  the  Apostle's  meaning, 
that  there  is  not  only  upon  confession  a  free  pardon  granted,  but 
there  is  a  purgation  that  goes  along  with  it,  that  carries  away  the 
malicious  filth  of  sin.  The  pardon  is  available  for  our  justification 
but  the  purgation  hath  an  influence  upon  our  lives.  By  it  we  come 
to  be  new  creatures,  and  are  by  little  and  little  freed  from  the  polu- 
tion  of  sin.  For  together  with  the  action  of  God  in  forgiving  sin, 
concurreth  another  action  of  divine  grace,  enabling  a  man  to  forsake 
and  mortify  every  greater  sin  which  God  pardoneth.  The  filthiness 
of  the  flesh  and  spirit  is  taken  down. 

"That  we  may  understand  this  point  the  better,  and  be  practition- 
ers in  it,  know  we  must  that  there  is  a  twofold  purging  ;  one  that  is 
made  by  the  blood  of  Christ,  this  is  perfect  even  now;  for  they  to 
whom  the  merit  of  Christ  is  imputed,  have  instantly  the  guilt  of  their 
sin  remitted,  so  that  it  hath  no  power  to  condemn. 

"  The  other,  purging  away  sin,  is  by  the  Spirit  of  Christ,  which 
will  never  be  brought  to  perfection  while  it  works  upon  this  our  flesh. 
For  his  Spirit  begins  only  this  work  in  this  life  by  the  mortification 
of  our  earthly  members,  weakens  and  subdues  the  power  of  sin  ;  so 
that,  though  it  remain  in  motion  and  act,  yet  the  dominion  is  re- 
moved ;  for  not  any  one  sin  reigns  in  us  to  command  as  it  was  wont 
to  do. — Exposition  of  the  Apostles^  Creed,  delivered  in  several 
Sermons,  by  William  Nicholson,  Archdeacon  of  Brecon,  pp.  40, 
and  607. 


68 


49^ 


ARCHBISHOP  USHER. 

Early  in  life,  this  acatlioUcorum  doctissimus,  (as  the 
Jesuit  Fitzsjmonds  pronounced  him,  themost  learned 
person  out  of  the  Catholic  Church)  commenced  "to 
read  the  Fathers  all  over  and  trust  none  but  his  own 
eyes  in  the  search  of  them."  This  stupendous  un- 
dertaking he  was  spared  to  accomplish.  He  read  a  cer- 
tain portion  every  day  in  chronological  order,  till  at  the 
end  of  eighteen  years  he  had  completed  the  task,  be- 
ginning with  the  Fathers  of  the  1st  Century,  and 
"observing  the  doctrine  of  the  Ancient  Charch." 
From  this  divine,  thus  thoroughly  furnished,  we 
have  the  following  lucid  statement  of  the  doctrine  of 
justification  and  faith. 

"The  word  justify  doth  not  signify  in  this  place,  (Rom.  viii.  30, 
33,  34,)  to  make  just  by  infusing  a  perfect  righteousness  into  our 
natures;  (that  comes  under  the  head  of  sanctification  begun  here  in 
this  life,  which  being  finished,  is  glorification  in  heaven  :)  but  here  the 
word  signifieth  to  pronounce  just,  to  quit  and  to  discharge  from  guilt 
and  punishment :  and  so  it  is  a  judicial  sentence  opposed  to  condem- 
nation. Rom.  viii.  34,  35.  Who  shall  lay  any  thing  (sailh  Paul) 
to  the  charge  oj  God's  elect  ?  It  is  God  that  just ijieth;  who  shall 
condemn?  Now,  as  to  condemn  is  not  the  putting  any  evil  into  the 
nature  of  the  party  condemned,  but  the  pronouncing  of  his  person 
guilty,  and  the  binding  him  over  unto  punishment:  so  justifying  is 
the  Judge's  pronouncing  the  law  to  be  satisfied,  and  the  man  dis- 
charged and  quitted  from  guilt  and  judgment.  Thus  God  imputing 
the  righteousness  of  Christ  to  a  sinner,  doth  not  account  his  sins  unlo 
him;  but  interests  him  in  a  state  of  as  full  and  perfect  freedom  and 
acceptance,  as  if  he  had  never  sinned,  or  had  himself  fully  satisfied. 
For  though  there  is  a  power  purging  the  corruption  of  sin,  which 
foUoweth  upon  justification;  yet  it  is  carefully  to  be  distinguished 
from  it:  as  we  shall  further  show  hereafter. 

"  This  for  the  name  of  justification :  but  now  for  the  thing 
itself;  what  is  the  matter  first  of  our  justification? 

"The  matter  of  justification,  or  that  righteousness  whereby  a  sin- 


499 


ner  stands  justified  in  God's  sight,  is  not  any  righteousness  inherent 
in  his  own  person  and  performed  by  him  ;  but  a  pertect  righteous- 
ness inherent  in  Christ,  and  performed  for  him. 

"  Trhat  righteousness  of  Christ  is  it  whereby  a  sinner  is  Justi- 
fied? 

"  Xot  the  essential  righteousness  of  liis  divine  nature  :  but, 
First,  the  absolute  integrity  of  our  human'  nature,  which  in  him, 
our  head,  was  witiiout  guile,  Heb.  vii.  26. 

"Secondly,  the  perfect  obedience  which  in  that  human  nature  of 
ours  he  performed  unto  the  whole  law  of  God;  both  by  doing  what- 
soever was  required  of  us  (Matt.  iii.  25)  and  by  suffering  whatsoever 
was  deserved  by  our  sins,  (1  Pet.  ii.  24).  For  he  was  made  sin 
and  a  curse  for  us;  that  we  might  be  made  the  righteousness  of 
God  in  him,  2  Cor.  v.  21. 

"  ^yl^at  is  the  form  or  being-cause  of  our  Justif  cation,  and  that 
which  makes  this  righteousness  so  reaUij  ours,  that  it  doth  jus- 
tify vs? 

"  The  gracious  imputation  of  God  the  Father,  accounting  his  Son's 
righteousness  unto  the  sinner,  and  by  that  accounliog,  making  it  his, 
to  all  effects,  as  if  he  himself  had  performed  it. 

^^But  how  can  ChrisCs  righteousness  be  accounted  ours?  is  it 
not  as  absurd  to  say  that  we  are  justified  by  Christ's  righteous- 
ness, as  that  a  man  should  be  fed  with  the  meat  another  eats  ?  or 
be  warmed  with  the  clothes  another  iveareth  ?  or  be  in  life  and 
health  with  the  life  and  health  of  another? 

"  Xo,  doubtless,  because  this  righteousness  is  to  Christ,  not  as  in 
a  person  severed  t>om  us,  but  as  in  the  head  of  our  common  nature, 
the  second  Adam:  from  whom  therefore  it  is  communicated  unto 
all,  who  being  united,  as  members  unto  him,  do  claim  thereunto,  and 
apply  it  unto  themselves,  Rom.  v.  19;  x.  4.  For  if  the  sin  Adam 
being  a  man,  were  of  force  to  condemn  us  all,  because  we  were  in 
his  loins,  he  being  the  head  of  our  common  nature  :  why  then  should 
it  seem  strange,  that  the  righteousness  of  our  Saviour  Christ,  both 
God  and  man,  should  be  available  to  justify  those  that  are  interested 
in  him  especially  considering  that  we  have  a  more  strict  conjunc- 
tion in  the  Spirit  with  him,  than  ever  we  had  in  nature  with  Adam  ? 

JThat  gather  you  from  the  doctrine  of  Justification  by 
Christ's  righteousness? 

"To  condemn  the  proud  opinion  of  Papists  who  seek  justification 


500 


by  their  own  works  and  righteousness  inherent  in  themselves : 
whereas  though  being  accepted,  we  must  in  thankfulness  do  all  we 
can  for  God  ;  yet  when  all  is  done,  we  must  acknowledge  ourselves 
unprofitable  servants:  the  only  matter  of  our  joy  and  triumph  both 
in  life  and  death,  must  be  the  imputation  of  Christ's  righteousness. 
Not  our  persons  nor  the  best  actions  of  the  holiest  men,  dare  appear 
in  God's  presence,  but  in  his  name  and  merit  who  consecrates  all, 
the  Lord  Jesus. 

"  But  how  is  this  great  benefit  of  justification  applied  unto  us, 
and  apprehended  by  us  ? 

"  This  is  done,  on  our  part,  by  faith  alone:  and  that,  not  consid- 
ered as  a  virtue  inherent  in  us,  working  by  love ;  but  only  as  an 
instrument  or  hand  of  the  soul  stretched  forth  to  lay  hold  on  the 
Lord  our  righteousness,  Rom.  v.  1 ;  x.  10.  Jer.  xxiii.  G.  So  that 
faith  justifieth  only  relatively^  in  respect  of  the  object  which  it  fas- 
teneth  on;  to  wit,  the  righteousness  of  Christ,  by  which  we  are  justi- 
fied :  faith  being  only  the  instrument  to  convey  so  great  a  benefit 
unto  the  souJ,  as  the  hand  of  the  beggar  receives  the  a]ms. 

"  What  is  that  which  you  make  the  object  of  saving  faith  7 

"  The  general  object  of  true  saving  faith,  is  the  whole  truth  of 
God  revealed ;  but  the  special  object  of  faith  as  it  justifieth,  is  the 
promise  of  remission  of  sins  by  the  Lord  Jesus.  For  as  the  Israelites, 
by  the  same  eyes  by  which  they  looked  upon  the  brazen  serpent, 
saw  other  things  ;  but  they  were  not  healed  by  looking  upon  any 
thing  else,  but  only  the  brazen  serpent ;  so,  though  by  the  same 
faith  whereby  I  cleave  to  Christ  for  remission  of  sins,  1  believe  every 
truth  revealed ;  yet  I  am  not  justified  by  believing  any  truth  but  the 
promise  of  grace  in  the  Gospel. 

•*  What  gather  we  from  hence  ? 

"First,  the  folly  of  Popish  Doctors,  who  persuade  the  multitude 
to  rest  in  a  blind  faith,  which  they  call  implicit  and  folded  up  ;  tell- 
ing  them  that  it  is  enough  for  them  to  believe  as  the  Church  believes, 
though  they  know  not  who  the  Church  is,  whereas  the  Scripture 
teacheth  us  that  faith  comes  by  hearing ;  that  is,  by  hearing  the 
blessed  promise  of  grace  offered  to  the  people,  Rom.  x,  14,  17." — 
Usher^s  Body  of  Divinity,  pp.  194,  198. 

The  Doctrine  of  imputed  righteousness,  expressed 
in  the  above  extracts  of  Usher's  Body  of  Divinity,  is 
given  in  precisely  the  same  substance,  and  with  equal 


501 


plainness,  throughout  his  Sermons  on  Justification, 
preached  at  Oxford,  where  he  says  more  than  once  of 
the  doctrine :  This  is  imjputative  righteousness,  as  it 
IS  IN  THE  Articles  of  the  Church  of  England." 

HOPKINS,  BISHOP. 

"  It  is  very  wonderful,  (says  Bishop  Hopkins,  of  venerable  mem- 
ory) that  the  Papists  should  so  obstinately  resolve  not  to  understand 
this  doctrine  of  innputed  righteousness,  but  still  cavil  against  it,  as  a 
contradiction.  It  being,  say  they,  as  utterly  impossible  to  become 
righteous  through  the  righteousness  of  another,  as  to  become  health- 
ful through  another's  health.  And  some,  besides  this  slander  of  a 
contradiction,  give  us  this  scoff  into  the  bargain  ;  that  the  Protestants 
in  defending  an  imputative  righteousness,  show  only  an  imputative 
modesty  and  learning.  But  they  might  do  well  to  consider  that 
some  denominations  are  physical,  others  only  legal  or  juridical.  To 
be  righteous  may  be  taken,  either  in  a  physical  sense,  and  so  it  de- 
notes an  inherent  righteousness,  which  in  the  best  is  imperfect;  or 
else  in  a  forensic  or  juridical  sense,  and  so  the  perfect  righteousness 
of  another  who  is  our  Surety,  may  become  ours,  and  be  imputed  for 
our  justification.  It  is  the  righteousness  of  anoiher personally  ;  ours 
juridically  ;  because  by  fliilh  we  have  a  right  and  title  to  it;  which 
accrue  to  us  by  the  promise  of  God,  and  our  union  to  our  Surety." — 
lFo?'A's,  vol.  ii.  pp.  323,  4. 

"  Justification  is  a  gracious  act  of  God,  whereby  through  the  right- 
eousness of  Christ's  satisfaction  imputed,  he  freely  remits  to  the  be- 
lieving sinner  the  guilt  and  punishment  of  his  sins;  and  through  the 
righteousness  of  Christ's  perfect  obedience  imputed,  he  accounts  him 
righteous,  and  accepts  him  into  love  and  favour,  and  unto  eternal 
life.  This  is  justification,  which  is  the  very  sum  and  pith  of  the 
whole  Gospel,  and  the  only  end  of  the  Covenant  of  Grace." — Doct. 
of  the  Two  Covenants.   Wo7'ks,  vol.  ii.  p.  .382. 

BEVERIDGE,  BISHOP, 

On  the  Article  of  Justijication — Eleventh. 

"  Whatsoever  we  lost  in  the  first,  we  gained  in  the  second  Adam. 
Are  we  accounted  sinners  by  Adam's  sin  imputed  to  us?  We  are 
accounted  righteous  by  Christ's  righteousness  laid  upon  us.  Are 
we  made  sinners  also  by  Adam's  sin,  inherent  in  us?    We  are  made 


502 


righteous  also  by  Christ's  righteousness  imparted  to  us;  his  Spirit 
being  our's  for  the  sanctification,  as  well  as  Adam's  sin,  our's  for  the 
corruption  of  our  nature  ;  and  his  merit  our's  for  the  justification,  as 
well  as  Adam's  transgression  our's  for  the  condemnation  of  our  per- 
sons. 

"  By  this  merit  it  is  that  we  are  accounted  righteous  before  God  ; 
where  we  may  take  notice  by  the  way,  how  our  being  justified  is 
here  expressed  by  our  being  accounted  righteous,  and  not  by  our 
being  made  righteous.  For  it  is  not  by  the  inhesion  of  grace  in  us, 
but  by  the  imputation  of  righteousness  to  us  that  we  are  justified  ;  as 
it  is  not  by  the  imputation  of  righteousness  to  us,  but  by  the  inhesion 
of  grace  in  us,  that  we  are  sanctified.  Thus  we  find  the  Apostle 
speaking  of  the  justification  of  Abraham,  saying,  '  Abraham  be- 
lieved God,  and  it  was  counted  to  him  for  righteousness  !'  Rom.  iv.  3  ; 
and  again,  'but  to  him  that  worketh  not,  but  believeth  on  him  that 
justifieth  the  ungodly,  his  faith  is  counted  for  righteousness.'  And  if 
faith  is  accounted  for  righteousness,  we  must  needs  be  accounted 
righteous  by  faith,  and  so  we  be  justified  by  faith,  that  is,  it  is  ac- 
counted for  righteousness  to  us  by  grace,  not  as  a  principle  of  right- 
eousness in  us.  Which  also  further  appears  in  that  justification  is 
here  said  to  be  of  the  ungodly,  '  who  justifieth  the  ungodly.'  For 
so  long  as  a  man  is  ungodly,  he  cannot  be  said  to  be  justified  by  any 
inward  and  inherent,  but  only  by  an  outward  and  imputed  righteous- 
ness ;  so  that  justification  is  properly  opposed  to  accusation.  So,  St. 
Paul  plainly,  '  who  shall  lay  any  thing  to  the  charge  of  God's  elect? 
it  is  God  that  justifieth,  who  is  he  that  condemneth?  it  is  Christ  that 
died,'  Rom.  viii.  33,  34.  Who  shall  accuse  or  lay  any  thing  to  the 
charge  of  God's  elect  1  The  devil,  their  own  consciences  ;  but  it  is 
God  that  will  justify  and  pronounce  them  righteous.  How?  Be- 
cause they  are  righteous  in  themselves  ?  No;  but  because  Christ's 
merits  are  imputed  to  them,  who  is  therefore  said,  '  to  be  made  sin 
for  us,  that  we  might  be  made  the  righteousness  of  God  in  him,'  2 
Cor.  V.  21.  How  was  Christ  made  sin  for  us?  Not  by  our  sins  in- 
herent in  him,  that  is  horrid  blasphemy  ;  but  by  our  sins  imputed  to 
him,  that  is  true  divinity.  And  as  he  was  made  sin  for  us,  not  by 
the  inhesion  of  our  sins  in  him,  but  by  the  imputation  of  our  sins  to 
him,  so  are  we  made  the  righteousness  of  God  in  him,  by  the  impu- 
tation of  his  righteousness  to  us,  not  by  the  inhesion  of  his  righteous- 
ness in  us.    He  was  accounted  as  a  sinner,  and  therefore  punished 


503 


for  us  ;  we  are  accounted  as  righteous,  and  therefore  glorified  in  him. 
Our  sins  were  laid  upon  him,  and  therefore  he  died  for  us  in  time; 
his  righteousness  is  laid  upon  us,  and  therefore  we  shall  live  with 
him  to  eternity.  Thus  was  the  innocent  punished,  as  if  he  was 
guilty,  that  the  guilty  might  be  rewarded,  as  if  they  were  innocent. 
And  thus  we  are  accounted  as  righteous  in  him,  as  he  was  accounted 
as  a  sinner  for  us. 

*'  He  was  accounted  as  a  sinner  for  us,  and  therefore  he  was  con- 
demned ;  we  are  accounted  as  righteous  in  him  ;  and  so  we  are  justi- 
fied. And  this  is  the  right  notion  of  justification  as  distinguished 
from  sanctification.  Not  as  if  these  two  were  ever  severed  or  divi- 
ded in  their  subjects;  no,  every  one  that  is  justified,  is  also  sancti- 
fied, and  every  one  that  is  sanctified  is  also  justified.  But  yet  the 
acts  of  justification  and  sanctification  are  two  distinct  things  :  for  the 
one  denotes  the  imputation  of  righteousness  to  us;  the  other  denotes 
the  implantation  of  righteousness  in  us.  And  therefore,  though  they 
be  both  the  acts  of  God,  yet  the  one  is  the  act  of  God  towards  us, 
the  other  is  the  act  of  God  in  us.  Our  sanctification  is  in  God  only, 
not  in  ourselves;  our  sanctification  is  in  ourselves  as  well  as  God. 
By  our  sanctification  we  are  made  righteous  in  ourselves,  but  not 
accounted  righteous  by  God ;  by  our  justification  we  are  accounted 
righteous  by  God,  but  not  made  righteous  in  ourselves.  And  we  are 
thus  justified  or  accounted  righteous  before  God  only  for  the  merit 
of  our  Lord  Christ,  and  not  for  our  own  works.  As  it  is  not  by 
our  own  strength  that  we  can  be  sanctified  in  ourselves,  so  it  is  not 
by  our  own  works  that  we  can  be  justified  before  God.  But  as  it  is 
only  by  the  Spirit  of  Christ  that  our  natures  can  be  made  holy,  so  it 
is  only  by  the  merit  of  Christ  that  our  persons  can  be  accounted 
righteous.  And  seeing  this  merit  of  Christ  is  made  over  unto  us  by 
our  faith  in  him,  we  are  therefore  said  '  to  be  justified  by  faith '  not 
as  it  is  an  act  in  us,  but  as  it  applies  Christ  to  us.  We  are  therefore 
said  to  be  justified  by  faith  in  Christ,  because  we  should  not  be  jus- 
tified by  Christ  without  faith.  Wherefore,  that  we  are  justified  by 
faith  only,  is  wholesome  doctrine,  and  very  full  of  comfort,  as  more 
largely  is  expressed  in  the  Homily  of  Justification,  whither  I  refer  the 
reader  for  more  satisfaction  in  that  particular." 

We  have  now  presented  a  chain  of  testimony  to 
the  great  Protestant  and  Gospel-doctrine  of  Justifica- 


504 


tion  by  the  imputed  righteousness  of  Christ;  that 
righteousness  consisting  in  Christ's  active  obedience 
in  fulfilling  the  law,  as  well  as  in  his  passive  in  suf- 
fering its  penalty;  that  righteousness  applied,  em- 
braced, or  apprehended  only  by  faith;  and  faith  in 
this  act,  though  necessarily  a  lively  and  working 
faith,  and  w^orking  by  love,  yet  not  effectual  in  this 
application  of  Christ's  righteousness,  because  it  is  a 
virtue  or  works  by  love,  but  simply  because  it  is  the 
empty  hand  of  an  unworthy  beggar  reached  out  unto 
and  taking  hold  on  Christ.  We  have  presented  a  chain 
of  testimony  from  Tyiidale  and  Barnes,  morning 
stars  of  the  Anglican  Reformation,  down  through 
the  most  distinguished  of  the  Reformers,  to  the  time 
of  the  admirable  Beveridge,  whose  days  reached  into 
the  eighteenth  Century.  A  few  things  must  be  no- 
ted as  conspicuous  in  these  extracts.  Fii^st,  they  are 
from  the  most  learned,  conspicuous,  influential  and 
eminently  holy  divines  of  their  several  ages,  to  whom 
especially  the  Church  of  England  looks  for  her  no- 
blest sons,  and  the  Church  of  succeeding  ages  will 
look  for  her  most  venerable  Fathers.  Secondly,  they 
are  too  plain,  pointed,  reiterated,  concurrent,  unva- 
ried and  homogeneous  to  admit  of  a  supposition 
that  their  appearance  of  doctrine,  in  this  work,  is 
owing  to  their  being  seen  in  a  disconnected  form. 
No  context  can  change  the  testimony  of  such  passa- 
ges. Third.  They  all  speak  precisely  the  same  lan- 
guage. Just  what  Tyndale  and  Cranmer  and  Lati- 
mer said  in  the  early  part  of  the  16th  Century;  An- 
drewes  and  Mede  and  Downame  said  in  the  early 
part  of  the  17th,  and  Usher  and  Beveridge  in  the 
latter  part  of  the  same.    If  there  be  an  increase  of 


505 


clearness  and  precision  in  such  men  as  Usher  and 
Hall,  over  those  of  the  early  Reformers,  there  is  no 
variety  of  doctrine.    Fourth.  There  is,  in  all  these 
^vriters,  the  most  thorough  conformity,  and  the  most 
minute  similarity,  of  doctrine,  to  that  of  the  Articles 
and  Homiles  of  the  Church  of  England,  none  either 
stretching  beyond  or  falling  short  of  those  standards  in 
any  degree,  as  regards  justification.  Fifth.  Wherever 
any  persons  are  mentioned  by  these  great  writers  as 
opposing  their  doctrines  on  this  head,  they  have  no 
reference  to  any  but  Romanists,  or  Socinians;  the 
idea  not  having  arisen  in  their  minds  that  the  denial 
of  justification  by  a  righteousness  imputed,  and  the 
substitution  of  a  righteousness  inherent,  could  spring 
from  any  other  source  than  Popery,  or  Socinianism. 
Sixth.  Wherever  the  doctrine  common  to  Popery 
and  Oxford  Divinity,  as  to  justification  and  faith,  is 
treated  in  the  extracts  above  given,  it  is  invariably 
regarded  as  a  fundamental  error,  of  the  very  first  im- 
portance, a  doctrine  of  merits  in  opposition  to  grace, 
of  works  in  opposition  to  faith,  destructive  of  the  sin- 
ner's peace,  subversive  of  the  foundations  of  the  Gos- 
pel, by  all  means  to  be  rooted  out,  unheard  of  in  the 
Church,  till  ''the  spawn  *'  of  the  Schoolmen,  (as  Usher 
says,)  brought  it  forth,  and  the  arts  of  the  Jesuits 
nourished  it  up — a  doctrine  considered  in  England's 
Reformation,  precisely  as  in  that  of  the  Continent, 
articulus  cadentis  eccUsicB.    Let  this  "  abomination  of 
desolation"  be  once  admitted  into  the  Temple  of  God, 
and  instantly  will  be  heard,  therein,  as  before  the  de- 
struction of  the  Temple  of  Jerusalem  by  the  Romans 
— voices,  the  voices  of  all  the  precious  messengers  of 
gospel  consolations,  saving  ''Let  lis  remove  hence^ 

64 


CHAPTER  XII. 


CONCLUDING  OBSERVATIONS. 


After  all  that  has  been  developed  in  the  preceding 
chapters,  it  seems  hardly  possible  that  any  person, 
whichever  side  he  may  sympathise  with,  can  suppose 
that  the  amount  of  difference  between  the  system  of 
Oxford  divinity,  and  that  which  has  been  shown  to 
be  the  doctrine  of  the  Anglican  Church,  and  of  her 
Reformers,  and  standard  Divines,  is  little  else  than 
a  difference  of  words,  or  is  not,  in  sober  and  solemn 
verity,  a  difference  of  vital  importance  to  the  interests 
of  Christian  truth,  a  difference  upon  grand  primary 
questions,  involving  all  that  was  so  nobly  contended 
for  by  the  martyrs  of  the  Reformation,  and  all  that  is 
precious  to  the  sinner  in  the  gospel  of  Christ. 

One  thing  is  certain.  To  the  divines  at  Oxford,  at 
least  the  difference  between  their  system  of  faith,  in 
regard  to  the  way  of  justification,  and  all  the  hopes 
and  consolations,  and  duties,  and  ordinances,  con- 
nected therewith,  does  seem  of  most  radical  and  fun- 
damental importance,  however  it  may  seem  to  others. 
On  no  one  subject  of  all  their  voluminous  writings, 
has  so  much  labour,  care,  learning,  diligence  been 
expended  as  upon  that  of  justification.  Justly  con- 
sidering it  as  the  corner  stone  of  their  system  of  di- 
vinity, according  to  which  every  thing  else  must  be 
conformed,  Mr.  Newman  has  devoted  a  whole  volume 
of  elaborate  lectures  to  the  establishment  of  the  pe- 


508 


culiar  views  of  his  school  on  that  head.  Dr.  Pusey 
has  done  the  same.  The  close  and  exceedingly  earn- 
est volume  of  this  writer  on  Baptismal  Regeneration, 
is  substantially  a  treatise  on  justification,  these  two, 
in  Oxford  Divinity,  being  one;  '^different  aspects  of 
the  same  divine  gift."  The  entire  engrossment  of 
energy  and  zeal  with  which  these  writers  have  la- 
boured the  proof  of  their  doctrine  of  inherent  right- 
eousness for  justification,  as  communicated  by  the 
sole  instrumentality  of  Baptism;  the  strong  and  un- 
mitigated condemnation  which  they  pronounce  upon 
the  doctrine  of  an  external  and  imputed  righteous- 
ness, apprehended  only  by  faith;  their  declarations 
that  such  righteousness  is  unreal,  except  as  a  corrup- 
tion, a  bondage  to  shadows,  a  substitution  of  husks 
and  shells  for  the  bread  of  life,  an  arbitrary  tyranical 
usurpation  in  place  of  the  rich  grace  of  the  gospel ; 
the  tone  of  contempt  in  which  they  cry  away  with 
it  r  the  contrast  drawn  between  the  effects  of  the 
preaching  of  justification  through  the  accounted 
righteousness  of  Christ,  by  faith  alone,  upon  men's 
consciences,  to  wean  them  from  holiness,  and  those 
of  the  wretched  system  of  indulgences,  and  "  the  stale 
dregs  of  the  ancient  medicine"  in  the  Church  of 
Rome,  giving  decidedly  the  preference,  in  point  of 
moral  influence,  to  the  latter ;  the  positive  statement 
that  the  departure  of  Romanism  from  the  ancient 
faith,  is  only  "  external  and  objective,"  while  that  of 
common  Protestanism  is  ''internal  and  radical;"  the 
express  declaration  that  the  doctrine  of  justification 
by  imputed  righteousness  is  ''another  gos^peV ;  the 
very  intelligible  intimation  that  it  brings  its  advocates 
under  the  anathema  pronounced  in  Scripture  upon 


509 


whosoever  should  preach  any  other  gospel  than 
preached  by  St.  Paul — all  this,  so  like  the  anathe- 
matising language  of  the  Council  of  Trent,  in  the 
same  cause,  for  precisely  the  same  doctrine,  and 
against  the  same  opposers,  most  impressively  teaches 
that  if  it  be  the  idea  of  any  that  the  difference  be- 
tween their  views  and  those  exhibited  in  this  work, 
as  the  doctrines  of  the  Anglican  Church,  is  of  subor- 
dinate importance,  it  is  very  far  from  being  the  idea 
of  the  divines  of  Oxford.  With  the  Church  of  Rome 
they  consider  their  common  doctrine  of  justification 
as  of  such  fundamental  importance  that  if  this  be  not 
established  their  cause  fails,  their  restorations  are  null 
and  void.  They  are  perfectly  right.  The  difference 
is  at  least  as  great  as  they  represent  it.  Their  mode 
of  representing  the  w^ay  of  salvation  is  indeed  an- 
other gospel"  to  us ;  another  to  the  Church  to  whose 
doctrines  we  are  pledged.  The  whole  ground- work 
on  w^hich  they  teach  the  sinner  to  rely  for  justifica- 
tion and  acceptance  before  God,  is  the  very  reverse 
of  that  which  we  have  learned  from  the  Scriptures, 
and  which  our  Fathers  have  declared  unto  us.  Their 
righteousness,  on  which  their  hope  of  acceptance  is 
based,  is  their  own,  as  much  as  their  intellects  are 
their  own.  That  on  which  we  rely  for  all  hope  of 
present  mercy  or  final  acceptance  is  exclusively  the 
righteousness  of  Christ.  To  them  justification  con- 
sists in  being  made  personally  holy.  To  us,  it  con- 
sists in  being  accounted  righteous  through  the  obe- 
dience and  death  of  our  Redeemer.  They  satisfy  the 
law  by  their  own  obedience ;  we  have  no  hope  of  its 
fulfilment  and  satisfaction  in  our  behalf,  but  as  it  re- 
ceived its  full  demand  in  the  obedience  of  our  Surety. 


510 


While  professing  to  have  no  idea  of  any  merit  but  that 
of  Christ,  they  look  to  it,  not  for  direct  acceptance 
with  God,  but  for  the  power  of  divine  grace  to  enable 
them  so  to  work  and  walk,  that  in  themselves  they 
shall  be  acceptable.  We,  entirely  rejecting  such  a 
scheme,  as  equivalent  to  a  righteousness  of  works, 
and  believing  it  to  be  precisely  that  of  the  law  in 
which  St.  Paul  so  earnestly  desired  that  he  might 
not  be  found,  do  look  directly  unto  Jesus,  the  author 
and  finisher  of  our  faith,  not  only  for  the  Holy  Spirit 
to  make  us  meet  for  the  presence  of  God,  but  for  all 
the  righteousness  on  which  the  title  to  that  presence 
must  be  founded.  Thus  as  to  "  the  nature  and  es- 
sence of  the  medicine  whereby  Christ  cureth  our  dis- 
ease," we  are  as  wide  apart  as  two  opposite  descrip- 
tions of  remedy  can  make  us. 

Precisely  as  complete  as  is  the  change  required  by 
this  system  in  all  our  ideas  of  the  sinner's  only  ground 
of  reliance  for  acceptance  with  God,  is  the  transfor- 
mation it  demands  in  all  that  we  have  been  taught, 
by  the  standards  of  our  Church,  of  the  way  of  apply- 
ing the  only  remedy  in  the  Gospel,  for  the  sinner's 
ruin.  Justifying  faith  is  literally  nothing  in  this  sys- 
tem but  a  name,  a  pretence  to  something  which  it  is 
not.  According  to  the  old  way  of  the  Apostles,  faith 
is  every  thing  in  the  apphcation  of  the  righteousness 
of  Christ;  as  faith  was  every  thing  in  the  coming  of 
blind  Bartimeiis  to  have  his  eyes  opened  by  the  power 
of  Christ.  It  was  Christ  that  opened  his  eyes.  But 
the  blind  man's  faith  was  that  which  alone  brought 
down  upon  his  dark  eye-balls  those  benevolent  and 
wonder-working  hands.  Such  precisely  is  the  agency 
of  faith,  in  bringing  the  soul  to  Christ,  and  in  obtain- 


511 


ing  that  wedding  garment  of  his  perfect  righteous- 
ness ;  an  agency  so  essential,  so  peculiar,  so  solitary ; 
not  as  if  any  but  a  living  faith  could  thus  avail ;  but 
that  w^hile  as  a  living  faith,  it  contains  within  itself 
the  whole  essential  life  of  all  love  and  active  obe- 
dience it  comes  not  to  Christ  with  the  price  of  that  love 
and  obedience  wherewith  to  recommend  the  penitent 
soul  to  God's  acceptance  ;  but  renouncing  all  thought 
of  itself  and  of  the  love  it  practically  works  by,  holds 
out  the  empty  hand  of  a  poor,  miserable,  worthless  beg- 
gar, crying  mercy  to  iinrighteonsness,  only  through  the 
righteousness  of  Chrisfs  ohedience  and  death  for  sin- 
ners. 

But  no  such  peculiar  office  has  faith  in  the  appli- 
cation of  the  Gospel  remedy,  according  to  the  new 
divinity  of  Oxford.  There,  when  a  sinner  who  was 
baptized  in  infancy,  applies  to  know  '^what  he  must 
do  to  he  saved,''^  he  is  told  that  he  has  been  already 
spiritually  and  savingly  regenerated  and  justified, 
that  he  has  been  made  "the  temple  of  the  Holy 
Ghost,"  has  had  the  indwelling  of  God,"  the 
Shekinah"  of  the  Holy  One,  abiding  in  him  and  in- 
vesting his  soul  "  with  the  only  wedding  garment ;" 
that,  in  his  baptism,  all  original  sin  was  taken  away 
from  him,  and  he  received  an  angel's  nature,"  and 
was  made  pure  and  spotless  before  God.  But,"  an- 
swers the  enquirer.  I  have  sinned.  Ever  since  I 
became  capable  of  knowing  good  from  evil,  I  have 
had  to  confess,  as  in  the  language  of  the  Church,  that 
I  have  erred  and  strayed  from  God,  as  a  lost  sheep, 
and  there  is  no  health  in  me.  My  enquiry  is  not,  what 
I  was  when  an  infant,  but  how  I  may  become  what 
a  sinner  must  be  before  he  can  see  God  in  peace. 


512 


What  must  I  do  to  be  saved  from  the  condemnation 
of  my  past  and  present  sins?"  Oxford  Divinity  an- 
swers, by  enquiring  whether  his  sins  belong  to  the 
class  of  mortal  or  venial.  They  are  '*  sins  after  Bap- 
tism ^  It  is  an  immense  matter  for  the  enquirer  to 
settle  in  his  mind,  if  he  would  drink  of  the  consola- 
tions of  this  divinity,  to  which  class  his  sins  belong. 
If  they  have  all  been  venial — that  is,  if  they  have  not 
been  mortal,  then  they  say  to  him,  go  in  peace,'  thy 
sins  he  forgiven  thee.  The  virtue  of  your  Infant  Bap- 
tism remains.  Faith  which  proceeded  therefrom, 
whether  you  have  ever  been  conscious  of  its  opera- 
tion or  not,  faith,  as  the  symbol  and  representa- 
tive of  Baptism,  has  not  lost  the  life  which  it  received 
in  Baptism,  since  nothing  but  mortal  sin  can  slay  it. 
Therefore  the  cleansing  from  all  sin,  as  well  actual, 
as  original,  which  Baptism  conveys,  still  abides. 
You  are  still  regenerate  and  justified ;  the  cross  is 
still  erected  within  you ;  still  have  you  "  an  indwell- 
inof  God  ;"  the  riorhteousness  of  the  law  is  fulfilled" 
in  you,  and  so  are  you  accepted  in  God's  sight. 
*'  But,"  answers  the  enquirer,  My  conscience  cannot 
be  satisfied  in  this  way.  What  is  my  faith  ?  I  am  no 
infidel  indeed.  I  receive  the  Christian  religion  as 
true.  But  I  have  never  considered  why  I  receive  it. 
It  has  come  to  me  as  a  sort  of  inheritance.  It  is  the 
faith  of  the  Church  in  which  I  was  baptized,  and  that 
is  about  all  the  reason  I  have  known  for  retaininor  it. 
Experience  of  its  power,  internal  evidence  from  its 
effects,  I  know  of  none.  Besides,  I  am  ignorant  of 
its  great  and  peculiar  doctrines.  There  is  the  death 
of  Christ,  as  set  before  me  in  the  cross  which  is  erect- 
ed in  the  Church,  and  marked  on  my  forehead.  I 


513 


really  do  not  know  any  thing  about  it,  except  what 
that  naked  cross  can  tell  me.  I  have  heard  of  some- 
thing called  the  atonement,  as  a  great  doctrine  of  the 
Gospel,  but  what  it  means  I  know  not.  Certain  Pro- 
testants say  that  I  must  look  unto  Jesus,  embrace  his 
cross  by  faith,  put  all  my  trust  in  what  he  did  for  me, 
and  that,  without  this,  I  can  have  no  peace  with  God; 
but  this  I  have  never  done,  Christ  has  never  been 
directly  in  my  thoughts  when  I  have  sought  to  be 
reconciled  to  God.  I  have  attended  Church,  kneeled 
and  bowed,  and  made  the  sign  of  the  cross;  I  have 
kept  my  eye  very  much  upon  the  image  of  the  cross, 
over  the  altar,  and  have  regularly  taken  the  Holy 
Supper,  and  led  a  good  moral  life ;  I  have  not  been 
profane,  nor  licentious,  nor  a  bad  neighbour.  I  have 
fasted  when  directed  by  the  Church,  and  kept  her 
feasts,  and  given  alms  to  the  poor ;  but  still  I  have 
not  been  directing  my  mind,  and  heart,  and  trust,  at 
all  to  what  Christ  did  for  me  on  the  cross,  and  for  a 
very  good  reason,  because  I  do  not  know  what  he 
did,  and  yet  you  tell  me  that  because  I  have  commit- 
ted no  deadly  sin,  I  am  still  as  entirely  clear  and  jus- 
tified before  God,  as  I  was  when  baptized  in  infancy, 
though  I  daily  confess  that  I  have  erred  and  strayed 
like  a  lost  sheep."  Yes,"  answers  Oxford  Divinity. 
"Your  case  is  uncommon.  We  do  not  often  meet 
with  a  person  so  ignorant  of  what  Christ  did  for  us 
on  the  cross.  But  that  does  not  hinder  you  from 
having  a  true  and  living  faith.  '  Explicit  faith  in 
the  atonement'  is  not  necessary  to  justification.  You 
T)elieve  the  Church,  and  whatever  the  Church  de- 
clares.   In  this  way,  you  may  be  considered  as  be- 

65 


514 


lieving  in  the  atonement,  not  waiting  to  know  what 
the  Church  teaches  in  regard  to  it,  nor  presuming  to 
ask  w^hy  she  teaches  it.  Thus  you  have  an  implicit 
faith.  And  this  knowledge  is  enough  to  enable  it  to 
act  as  the  representative  of  your  baptism,  and  as  sus- 
taining the  justification  which  your  baptism  com- 
municated. Distinct  reference  to  the  cross  of  Christ 
is  not  required  of  your  faith.  A  cross  was  erected 
within  you  at  your  baptism.  Look  to  that,  and  all 
will  be  rio^ht.  You  have  had  a  livinor  faith  ever  since 
you  were  baptized,  even  in  your  unconscious  infancy. 
All  you  have  to  do  is  just  to  go  on  in  the  course  you 
have  so  well  begun;  not  to  destroy,  by  mortal  sin,  that 
'divine  gift,'  that  glorious  '  Shekinah  of  the  Word  In- 
carnate,' that  'angelic  nature'  which  you  received  in 
baptism,  and  are  now  ennobled  by.  We  must  remind 
you,  however,  that  all  depends  upon  the  accuracy  of 
your  knowledge  of  the  difference  between  sins  that  are 
mortal,  and  sins  that  are  not  mortal.  A  mistake  here 
is  fatal.  One  mortal  sin  is  death  to  all  your  baptis- 
mal blessings,  and  hopes,  and  dignities,  and  gifts. — 
Consider  well,  then,  whether  you  have  ever  commit- 
ted a  MORTAL  sin." 

"But  how  shall  I  know?  (says  the  enquirer,)  Give 
me  some  rule  by  which  to  judge." 

"  A  rule  which  shall  so  accurately  guide  you  in  all 
circumstances  (says  Oxford  Divinity  of  necessity,) 
that  you  shall  be  at  no  loss  to  determine,  in  each  par- 
ticular case,  whether  the  sin  was  mortal  or  not,  and 
especially  a  rule  by  which  you  shall  be  able  so  to 
determine  as  to  all  those  sins  which  it  is  narv  impossi- 
ble for  yaii  to  remember,  we  cannot  furnish  you. 


515 


Nothing  but  a  general  definition  can  be  given,  sub- 
ject in  its  application  to  circumstances."^ 

"But  (answers  the  enquirer,)  I  have  now  been  living 
some  sixty  years.  How  can  I  call  up  all  my  sins, 
with  all  their  circumstances,  and  bring  them  to  the 
trial  of  a  rule  so  general,  and  thus  ascertain  of  each  sin, 
out  of  those  of  every  day  and  hour  of  my  life,  whether 
it  was  of  one  class,  or  the  other  ?    And  yet  on  this, 

1  The  following  passage  from  Dr.  Pusey  contains  a  most  painful  showing  of 
the  impossibility  of  distinguishing  between  sins  venial  and  mortal,  and  the  con- 
sequent necessity  of  every  baptized  person  either  concluding  that  he  has  com- 
mitted mortal  sin,  since  his  baptism,  and  has  thus  lost  justification,  or  else  of 
being  in  a  state  of  uncertainty  which  cannot  but  destroy  all  confidence  of  peace 
with  God.  "A  question  (says  Dr.  Pusey)  will  probably  occur  to  many;  what 
is  that  grievous  sin  after  baptism  which  involves  the  falling  from  grace?  what 
the  distinction  between  lesser  and  greater — texijlL  and  mortal  sinsl  or  if 
MORTAL  sins  be  *  sins  against  the  decalogue,'  as  St.  Augustine  says,  are  they 
only  the  highest  degrees  of  those  sins,  or  are  they  the  lower  also  ?  This  ques- 
tion, as  it  is  a  very  disiressing  one,  I  -would  gladly  ansiver  if  I  could  or  dared. 
But,  as  with  regard  to  the  sin  against  the  Holy  Ghost,  so  here  also,  Scripture 
is  silent.  I  certainly,  much  as  I  have  laboured,  have  not  yet  been  able  to  de- 
cide any  thing.  Perhaps  it  is  therefore  concealed,  lest  men's  anxiety  to  hold 
onward  to  the  avoiding  of  all  sin  should  was  cold.  But  now  since  the  degree 
of  T£xiAL  iniquity  (venial  iniquity  !  .')  if  persevered  in,  is  unknown,  the  eager- 
ness to  make  progress  by  more  instant  continuance  in  prayer  is  quickened,  and 
the  carefulness  to  make  holy  friends  of  the  mammon  of  unrighteousness  is  not 
despised." 

Some  who  were  disposed  to  go  to  a  considerable  length  with  the  school  of 
Dr.  Pusey,  have  been  aroused  into  indignant  opposition  by  these  and  kindred 
perversions  and  abominations.  Of  this  class,  is  the  writer  of  '^Letters  on  the 
Kingdom  of  Heaven,  &c.,"  who  asks :  "  Where  is  the  minister  of  Christ  in 
London,  Birmingham  or  Manchester,  whom  such  a  doctrine,  heartily  and  in- 
wardly entertained,  would  not  drive  to  madness  ?  He  is  sent  to  preach  the 
Gospel.  What  Gospel  ?  Of  all  the  thousands  whom  he  addresses,  he  cannot 
venture  to  believe  that  there  are  ten  who,  in  Dr.  Pusey's  sense,  retain  their  bap- 
tismal purity.  All  he  can  do,  therefore,  is  to  tell  wretched  creatures,  who  spend 
eighteen  hours  out  of  the  twenty  four  in  close  factories  and  bitter  toil,  corrupt- 
ing and  being  corrupted,  that  if  they  spend  the  remaining  six  in  prayer — he 
need  not  add  fasting — they  may  possibly  be  saved.  How  can  we  insult  God 
and  torment  man  with  such  mockery  !" — Letters  on  the  Kingdom  of  Heaven, 
&c.  vol.  1. 


516 


all  my  consolation,  from  my  baptismal  justification, 
depends." 

"True,  (answers  Oxford  Divinity,)  we  do  not  pre- 
tend to  any  better  consolation.  To  enable  you  to 
know  your  precise  state  before  God,  so  that  you  may 
have  any  thing  better  than  an  uncertain  hope,  is  not 
our  profession." 

"Well  then,  (says  the  enquirer,)  the  safest  w^ay  is 
to  believe  the  w^orst ;  that  during  my  sixty  years  of  sin- 
ning and  confessing,  in  the  midst  of  so  much  respon- 
sibility, required  of  God  to  love  Him  with  all  my 
heart  and  strength,  and  my  neighbour  as  myself,  I 
have,  by  thought,  word,  or  deed,  by  omission  or  com- 
mission, committed,  at  least,  one  mortal  sin,  one  sin 
that  deserves  God's  wrath  and  indignation.  What 
then?" 

"  Your  case  is  entirely  and  awfully  changed.  That 
one  sin  destroyed  your  faith.  It  is  now  dead.  There 
remains  no  representative  of  baptism  to  sustain  its 
efficacy.  Consequently  your  regeneration  and  justi- 
fication have  ceased.  There  is  now^  no  cross  erected 
within  you.  '  The  Shekinah  of  the  Word  Incarnate ' 
has  passed  away.  Your  sin  is  condemning  to  the 
soul,  and  abideth  on  you." 

"  O  tell  me  then  what  must  I  do  to  be  saved?  I 
am  old  and  grey-headed.  The  grave  waits  for  me. 
The  wrath  of  God  is  upon  me.  What  can  I  do?" 
(Oxford  Divinity  says,)  "Repent  of  this  thy  wicked- 
ness!" 

"But  how  can  I  repent?  (answers  the  enquirer,)  I 
have  been  taught  that  there  is  no  true  repentance 
without  love  to  God,  and  that  the  love  of  God  is  shed 
abroad  in  the  heart  only  in  baptism,  and  as  I  cannot 


517 


be  baptized  again,  how  shall  I  get  the  love  of  God, 
and  how  can  I  truly  repent?  Besides,  what  sort  of 
repentance  is  necessary  for  this  mortal  sin,  and  of 
what  avail  will  it  be?    Do  help  my  aching  heart.'' 

Dr.  Pnsey  answers :  Who  triihj  repent  (for  such  a 
sin) ;  what  are  helps  towards  true  repentance;  when 
a  man  who  has  been  guilty  of  '  deadly  sin  wilfully 
committed  after  baptism  may  be  satisfied  that  he  is 
truly  repentant  for  it ;  whether  and  to  what  degree  he 
should  all  his  life  continue  his  repentance  for  it ; 
whether  he  be  altogether  pardoned;  wherein  his 
penitence  should  consist ;  whether  continued  repent- 
ance would  efface  the  traces  of  his  sin  in  himself; 
whether  he  might  ever  in  this  life  look  upon  himself 
as  restored  to  the  state  in  which  he  had  been,  had  he 
not  committed  it;  whether  it  affect  the  degree  of  his 
future  bliss  [after  being  repented  of):  whether  it 
shall  appear  again  at  the  day  of  judgment;  these  are 
questions  upon  which  a  modern  popular  theology  has 
decided  very  peremptorily,'^  but  on  which  our  bet- 
ter Divinity  of  Oxford,  the  Catholic  verity,  does  not 
presume  to  speak  to  you  with  any  definitiveness." 

"Then,  (answers  the  enquirer,)  am  I  to  be  left 
here  on  the  brink  of  the  grave,  uninformed  as  to 
what  is  true  repentance,  what  are  its  effects,  and 
how  I  am  to  get  it,  for  this  one  mortal  sin  after  bap- 
tism?" 

Oxford  Divinity  replies,  "we  have  no  more  light 
to  give." 

"But,  besides  repentance,  (says  the  enquirer,)  I 
cannot  be  saved  without  a  living  faith;  and  now  all  the 


'  Pusey's  Letter,  p.  55. 


518 


faith  I  ever  had  is  dead,  because  of  this  one  sin. 
How  can  I  ever  have  it  made  alive  again?" 

Dr.  Pusej  answers,  "  'The  Church  has  no  second 
baptism  to  give,'  and  therefore,  as  we  know^  of  no 
way  for  the  regeneration  of  faith  but  in  that  Sacra- 
ment, the  Eucharist  being  only  for  those  whose  faith 
is  living,  we  must  decline  any  further  answer  to  that 
question." 

^*Then  what  shall  I  do?  I  have  lost  my  regenera- 
tion and  justification ;  I  cannot  be  saved  unless  I  can 
regain  them :  baptism  is  the  only  instrument  of  both. 
It  cannot  be  repeated — w^hat  shall  I  do  ?  To  go  to 
the  grave  in  such  a  state  of  awful  uncertainty  is  in- 
tolerable." 

Dr.  Pusey  answers,  Friend,  be  not  surprised  that 
we  can  give  you  no  better  consolation.  '  Romanism 
as  well  as  Ultra  Protestantism  w^ould  readily  consult 
for  this  your  feverish  anxiety  to  be  altogether  at 
ease.'  Our  Oxford  Divinity  considers  it  her  special 
excellence  that  she  leaves  you  in  all  this  uncertainty. 
She  'sets  you  in  the  way  in  which  God's  peace  may 
descend  upon  you,  but  forestalls  not  his  sentence. 
She  has  no  second  baptism  to  give,  and  so  she  can- 
not pronounce  you  altogether  free '  from  that  mortal 
sin.  "There  are  bat  two  periods  of  absolute  cleans- 
ing— baptism  and  the  day  of  Judgment.  She  there- 
fore teaches  you  continually  to  repent  that  so  your 
sins  may  be  blotted  out,  though  she  has  no  commis- 
sion to  tell  you  absolutely  that  they  are."^ 

"But  is  this  the  whole  consolation  the  Gospel 
brings  to  me  a  poor,  dying  sinner  ?    Soon  shall  I  be 


1  Pusey's  Letter,  p.  62.    This  doctrine  is  kept  up  through  the  Tracts. 


519 


upon  my  death-bed.  I  have  sinned  once  after  bap- 
tism, and  for  that,  the  provision  of  the  Gospel  is  so 
limited  that  I  must  die  in  the  awful  uncertainty  whe- 
ther I  have  repented  for  it,  as  sin  after  baptism  re- 
quires, and  whether  it  will  not  meet  me,  and  return 
upon  me,  at  the  judgment,  even  if  I  have  truly  re- 
pented.   Is  there  no  better  peace  than  this?" 

''Friend,  (answers  Dr.  Pusey,)  should  we  endea- 
vour to  remove  your  trouble,  it  would  be  consulting 
for  your  *  feverish  anxiety  to  be  at  ease.'  This  un- 
certainty w^hich  we  administer,  as  part  of  the  bene- 
fits of  our  system  of  divinity,  is  no  other  than  '  the 
bitterness  of  the  ancient  medicine.'  This  is  'the 
deep  and  searching  agony,  whereby  God,  as  in  a  fur- 
nace of  fire,  is  purifying  your  whole  man,  by  the 
Spirit  of  judgment  and  the  Spirit  of  burning.' 
There  are  two  other  ways  indeed.  The  one  is  that 
of  our  Holy  Mother,  the  Church  of  Rome,"  which 
system  as  to  the  present  matter  is  precisely  the  same 
as  ours,  except  in  this  that,  for  sin  after  baptism,  it 
provides  a  Sacrament  for  its  express  remission.  The 
sacrament  of  Penance  in  the  Romish  Church  takes 
the  repentance  and  faith  of  him  whose  conscience  is 
defiled  with  such  sin;  and  those  deficiences  which 
we  cannot  supply,  since  baptism  cannot  be  repeated, 
and  because  we  have  adopted,  as  yet,  no  substitute, 
she  supplies  by  the  sacramental  absolution  of  the 
Priest,  with  expiatory  penances  and  satisfaction. 
This  is  her  way  of  comforting  troubled  souls.  We 
object  to  it  because  it  is  consulting  '  man's  feverish 
anxiety  for  ease'  of  mind.  The  other  way  is  that  of 
Ultra  Protestants,  which  tells  you  that  repentance 


520 


for  sin  after  baptism  is  no  other  than  that  for  sin  he- 
fore  baptism,  just  the  sorrow  of  a  contrite  heart; 
that  a  living  faith  can  be  obtained  as  well  after  bap- 
tism, as  by  baptism;  and  with  such  repentance  and 
such  faith,  it  directs  you  immediately  to  Christ,  al- 
lowing of  no  necessity  of  any  sacrament  to  intervene 
between  you  and  the  Saviour,  but  promising  you 
entire  release  from  the  bond  of  your  sin,  the  moment 
you  embrace,  with  a  true  penitent  heart,  the  cross  of 
Christ,  as  all  your  hope.  Now  if  you  are  deter- 
mined not  to  be  content  with  such  consolation  as  it 
is  consistent  with  our  system  to  offer  you,  and  ask 
which  of  these  two  other  systems  you  should  choose, 
we  have  no  hesitation  in  saying  that  the  way  of  the 
Romish  Church,  even  should  you  take  up  with  her 
system  of  Indulgences,  is  the  better.  '  The  abuse 
of  the  doctrine  of  Justification,  in  the  other  system, 
sears  men's  consciences  as  much  as  the  Indulgences 
of  the  Romish  system.'  If  this  has  *but  the  dregs 
of  the  system  of  the  ancient  Church,  stale  and  un- 
profitable as  these  often  are,  they  have  yet  something 
of  the  strength  or  bitterness  of  the  ancient  medicine' 
— *  Romanism  in  practice  as  well  as  in  doctrine,  is  de- 
cayed'— 'yet  there  is  often  reality  in  it,  to  those  who 
would  find  it,'^  while  the  way  of  peace  proclaimed 
by  the  Ultra  Protestant,  that  of  the  imputed  righte- 
ousness of  Christ,  embraced  only  by  faith,  is  *  un- 
real'— 'a  real  corruption'  and  'another  gospel.' 

Alas  !  reader,  what  shall  we  do  to  be  saved,  so  as  to 
have  any  consolation  in  Christ,  if  all  our  refuge  is  in 
such  a  system  as  that  which  we  have  thus  so  imper- 


»  Pusey's  Letter,  p.  56  &  57. 


521 


fectly,  and  yet  most  truly  and  accurately,  so  far  as 
we  have  gone,  exhibited.  It  is  not  a  change  of  mere 
names  from  what  we  have  learned  of  Christ ;  it  is  not 
a  departure  from  the  usual  doctrine,  by  a  few  shades 
of  difference  only.  It  does  not  demand  of  us,  a  mere 
bending,  and  shortening,  or  lengthening  of  our  accus- 
tomed views  of  truth,  so  as  to  make  them  fit  the  mould 
presented  to  us.  It  is  a  change  of  great  fundamental 
doctrines ;  a  new  creation  of  our  whole  belief  of  the 
way  of  salvation;  old  things  must  pass  away;  all 
things  concerning  the  nature  of  the  Gospel  remedy, 
its  application  to  the  sinner,  the  number  and  efficacy 
of  the  means  of  that  application,  must  become  new. 
The  cross  of  Christ  lifted  up  on  high  for  every  soul 
to  be  ever  looking  at,  as  the  single  object  of  his  justi- 
fying faith,  and  foundation  of  his  only  hope,  must  be 
borne  away  from  its  central  position  in  the  grand 
panorama  of  gospel  truth,  and  laid  down  almost  out 
of  sight,  and  Baptism  be  set  up  in  its  stead,  having 
for  its  symbol  a  name  of  faith,  and  for  its  virtue,  a 
cross  within,  Christ  crucified,  only  in  the  sense  of 
self-mortification.  Thus  must  we  change  our  hopes 
and  desert  our  consolations,  and  bring  a  cloud  of  dark 
uncertainty  over  our  eternal  prospects,  and  refuse  to 
rejoice  in  Christ,  and  fear,  as  presumption,  a  confi- 
dence of  plenary  justification  through  the  blood  of 
Jesus,  except  we  can  persuade  ourselves,  as  never  a 
mortal  being  could,  with  truth,  that  since  our  baptism 
in  infancy,  we  have  never  committed  a  mortal  sin. 

We  need  go  no  further  in  showing  how  completely 
this  Via  Media  is  an  abandonment  of  all  that  we  have 
been  taught  by  our  Church  to  believe,  to  be  the  true, 
the  narrow,  the  only  way  that  leadeth  unto  life ;  how 

66 


522 


entirely  it  is  the  very  soul  and  strength  of  all  that  is 
evil  in  the  Romanism  against  which  our  Reformers 
protested  to  their  last  breath  out  of  the  furnace  of  fire. 
To  whomsoever  this  system  may  seem  to  involve  lit- 
tle else  than  a  very  tolerable  difference  of  opinion,  we 
call  up  the  venerable  Bishop  Hall,  who,  himself,  had 
to  war  with  precisely  such  latitudinarian  ideas  of  the 
importance  of  the  question,  to  deliver  his  testimony. 
Hear  him ! 

The  grossest  of  the  Popish  heresies  and  the  most  venomous 
opinions  of  Rome  are  conversant  about  justification,  free  will,  merit 
of  our  works,  &c. 

"  That  point  of  justification  of  all  other  is  exceeding  important,  in- 
somuch that  Calvin  was  fain  to  persuade  that  if  the  one  might  be 
yielded  safe  and  entire,  it  would  not  quit  the  cost  to  make  any  great 
quarrel  for  the  rest.  (Because  the  truth  would  not  then  out.)  But 
while  the  Tridentine  Fathers  take  upon  them  to  forge  the  formal 
cause  of  our  justification,  to  be  our  own  inherent  justice,  and  thrust 
faith  out  of  office;  what  good  man  can  choose  but  presently  address 
himself  to  an  opposition?  Who  would  not  rather  die  than  suffer  the 
ancient  faith  of  the  Church  to  be  depraved  with  these  idle  dreams? 
In  the  meantime  we  cannot  but  scorn  to  see  the  souls  of  men  so 
shamefully  deluded,  while  we  hear  the  Spirit  of  God  so  often  redou- 
bling without  works;  not  by  works,  but  by  faith,  being  Justifed free- 
ly by  his  grace. 

But  some  perhaps  may  think  this  a  mere  strife  of  words,  and  not 
hard  to  be  reconciled,  for  that  which  to  the  Papists  is  inherent  justice, 
is  no  other  to  the  Protestants  than  sanctification ;  both  sides  hold  this 
equally  necessary.  True,  but  do  both  require  it  in  the  same  man- 
ner? do  both  to  the  same  end?  I  think  not.  Yea,  what  can  be  more 
contrary  than  these  opinions  to  each  other?  The  Papists  make  this 
inherent  righteousness  the  cause;  the  Protestants  the  effect  thereof. 
The  Protestants  require  it  as  the  companion  or  page.  The  Papists 
as  the  usher,  yea,  rather  as  ihe  parent  of  justification. 

"  '  But  what  matters  it  (say  they,)  so  both  ascribe  this  whole  work 
to  God?  as  though  it  comes  not  all  to  one  to  pay  a  sum  for  me,  and 
to  give  it  me  to  pay  for  myself    J  know  how  these  things  seem  so 


523 


little  dissonant  to  men's  ears,  which  the  Spirit  of  God  hath  made  ut- 
terly incompatible,'  To  him  that  worlcethis  the  reward  not  imputed 
of  grace,  but  of  debt.  If  by  grace,  then  not  of  works;  or  else  grace 
should  be  no  more  grace.'*  'For  neither  is  it  grace  any  way,  if  it 
be  not  free  every  way,'  saith  Augustine.  But  these  men  say, 
*  Therefore  of  grace  because  of  works.' 

"  To  be  imputed  therefore,  and  to  be  inherent  differ  no  less  than 
God  and  man,  Trent  and  Heaven. 

"  But  say  our  modern  Papists,  Christ  hath  merited  this  merit  of 
ours ;  neither  can  any  other  work  challenge  this  to  themselves,  but 
those  which  are  done  in  God,  as  Andrada  speaks.  But  what  is  this 
but  to  cozen  the  world,  and  to  cast  a  mist  before  the  eyes  of  the  un- 
skilful? Our  sins  are  dyed  in  the  blood  of  Christ,  not  our  merits. — 
'  What  I  do  is  mine,  what  I  merit  is  mine;  whosoever  gives  me 
either  to  do  or  to  merit.''  "  * 

Precisely  the  doctrine  of  Romanism  and  of  Ox- 
fordism  which  this  good  and  faithful  witness  of  the 
truth  thus  declared  to  be,  as  far  asunder  from  the 
Protestant  and  Anglican  doctrine,  of  imputed  right- 
eousness, as  God  and  man,  as  Trent  and  Heaven  is 
considered,  by  the  learned  Dr.  Jackson,  as  unroof- 
ino^  the  edifice  and  defacinor  the  walls  of  Christian 
faith,  leaving  nothing  thereof  but  loose  altar  stones 
for  the  idolatrous  sacrifices  of  Romanists."  The 
good  Bishop  Andrewes,  granted  that  Romanists  went 
so  far  as  to  allow  imputation  '"in  that  part  of  Christ's 
righteousness  which  is  satisfactory  for  punishment;" 
yet  because  they  allowed  it  not  in  that  positive  right- 
eousness of  Christ  which  is  meritorious  of  reward," 
viz.  their  active  obedience  to  the  law  for  us,  said 
they  did  shrink  up  the  name  of  Christ  as  the  Lord 
our  Righteousness,'"  and  "  spoil  him  of  half  his  name." 
What  the  Judicious  Hooker  thought  of  the  impor- 


i  Bishop  Hall's  No  Peace  with  Rome. 


524 


tance  of  the  question  none  can  be  ignorant  who  have 
ever  looked  into  his  admirable  discourse  on  this  very 
subject.  That  the  principle  of  justification,  by  in- 
hertnt  righteousness — in  other  M^ords,  what  he  calls 
it, the  attributing  unto  worhs  a  power  of  satisfying  for 
sin,'"  as  Rome  does,  and  as  Oxford  Divinity  does, 
while  both  alike  declare  that  the  power  cometh  only 
through  the  merits  of  Christ,  because  he  doeth  the 
works  in  and  by  us ;  that  this  principle  "overthroweth 
the  foundation  of  faith,"  ^  though  it  is  not  ''a  direct 
denial  thereof,"  was  the  main  object  of  the  writing  of 
that  Discourse. 

We  have  been  aware  all  the  while  of  the  prepara- 
tion of  this  book,  that  it  may  be  said,  and  probably 
will  be,  by  some  reader,  that  some  of  the  features  of 
doctrine  which  we  have  been  ascribing  to  Romanism, 
are  not  peculiar  to  the  Church  of  Rome,  but  have 
been  always  held  by  some  Protestants,  here  and 
there,  and  are  now  to  be  found,  in  more  or  less  de- 
velopment, in  writers,  or  preachers,  or  divisions,  of 
almost  all  Protestant  Churches. 

If,  by  this,  be  meant  that  any  bodies  of  Protestant 
Christians,  united  together  under  the  sacramental 
seals  of  the  Gospel,  have  made  such  doctrines  the 
subjects  of  solemn  confession,  and  adopted  them  into 
creeds,  or  articles  of  faith,  as  Romanists  have  done ; 
we  deny  the  assertion.  It  has  been  the  peculiar 
honour  of  Rome  to  take  the  self-gratifying  doctrines 
of  man's  self-righteous  nature,  and  with  their  several 
ramifications,  and  defences  of  man's  unsanctified  wis- 
dom, to  set  them  up  on  high,  in  one  of  the  uppermost 


'  Disc,  on  Justification.  §  32. 


525 


seats  of  her  synagogue,  as  her  solemn  Church  doc- 
trine, sealed  v,iih  the  seal  of  infallibility,  and  com- 
manded to  be  received  of  all  people  and  kindreds, 
and  tongues. 

But  if  it  be  meant  that  such,  in  more  or  less  de- 
velopment, have  been  the  doctrines  of  individuals  in 
all  sections  of  the  Protestant  world,  we  have  no  dis- 
position to  deny  it.  On  the  contrary,  it  is  precisely 
in  evidence  of  v^^hat  we  desire  earnestly  to  impress 
on  all  minds,  that  the  essential  principal  of  Roman- 
ism, justification  by  our  own  righteousness,  so  far 
from  having  the  least  resemblance  to  that  of  the  doc- 
trine of  the  apostles,  which  was  to  the  ivoi'ld  fool- 
tshness^'  and  ^''an  offence^'  is  precisely  the  very  prin- 
ciple most  akin  to  man,  most  congenial  to  his  natural 
mind,  most  likely  to  spring  up  and  bud  and  blossom, 
and  only  to  be  kept  down  by  the  positive  over-bear- 
ing of  the  Gospel.  There  is  unquestionably  a  pow- 
erful tendency  in  the  human  mind,  feeling,  as  it  does, 
the  want  of  some  religion,  but  desiring  a  religion  as 
little  spiritual  as  possible,  to  take  up  with  the  radical 
principles  of  the  Romish  divinity,  even  while  the 
name  of  the  Church  of  Rome  is  execrated,  and  her 
overt  corruptions  are  abhorred,  and  the  profession  and 
boast  of  Protestantism  are  loud  and  high.  There 
are  ingredients  of  Romanism  under  all  names  of  Pro- 
testantism. Almost  every  form  of  error  has  affinity 
to  some  parts  of  the  body  of  that  divinity.  But  this 
certain  fact,  instead  of  making  the  true  and  systema- 
tised  and  developed  Romanism,  as  it  has  been  exhi- 
bited in  these  pages,  the  less  to  be  feared,  only  sets 
its  dangerous  presence  in  the  more  impressive  light. 
If  it  be  but  the  carrying  out  of  the  natural  tendencies 
of  the  human  niind,  in  all  circumstances,  in  proper- 


526 


tion  as  it  is  uncorrected  by  the  Gospel ;  then  the  more 
we  see  of  the  power  of  those  tendencies  everywhere, 
the  more  should  we  be  afraid  of  that  which,  by  call- 
ing them  out  and  giving  them  the  dignity  of  solemn 
doctrine,  and  the  force  of  embodied  association,  whe- 
ther it  take  the  name  of  Romanism  or  not,  does  but 
strengthen  the  resistance  of  man  to  the  power  and 
wisdom  of  God  in  the  cross  of  Christ.  When  phy- 
sicians are  alarmed  at  the  appearance  of  a  formidable 
disease  coming  forth  in  a  full  array  of  complex  symp 
toms,  you  will  little  diminish  their  anxiety  by  assur- 
ing them  that  there  are,  everywhere,  evidences  of  the 
atmosphere  being  genial  to  it,  and  of  a  partial  opera- 
tion of  its  latent  principles,  without  its  name.  If  they 
give  it  a  name  of  its  own,  and  set  themselves  to  alarm 
a  careless  community  against  it,  under  that  distinctive 
name ;  it  would  be  strange  indeed  should  some  one 
tell  them,  as  a  reason  against  their  zeal,  that  certain 
partial  features  of  that  malady  have  long  been  known, 
and  are  now  often  seen  without  being  marked  by  a 
name  so  alarming.  The  answer  would  be,  and  is 
ours;  the  name  is  not  the  evil.  Call  the  latter  what 
you  will,  it  is  the  same.  As  long  as  the  several  parts 
that  make  up  the  whole  are  scattered,  and  threaten 
not  to  unite  for  more  associated  and  conspicuous  in- 
fluence, they  are  comparatively  harmless,  and  may 
go  unnamed.  But  when  they  come  together,  and 
the  system  is  being  set  up,  and  the  several  joints  and 
sinews  compacted,  for  united  onset,  then  is  the  time 
to  fear ;  and  then,  for  the  more  distinct  disclosure  of 
the  danger,  and  making  of  the  evil,  we  fix  on  it  the 
corporate  name,  that  all  may  know  it  for  what  it  is, 
and  take  the  warning. 

We  are  well  aware  of  the  efforts  which  writers  in 


527 


behalf  of  Oxford  Divinity  have  made  to  stop  the  ef- 
fect of  the  charge  of  Romanism,  by  saying  that  it  is 
an  old  charge  which  sundry  advocates  of  truth,  since 
the  Reformation,  whom  none  now  suspect  of  Roman- 
ism, have  had  to  be  patient  with.  The  inference 
they  would  have  us  draw  is  that  such  will,  by  and 
by,  be  the  clearing  of  the  Oxford  Divinity,  in  the 
judgment  of  a  better  reasoning  community.  The 
premises  are  acknowledged.  The  desired  inference 
is  not.  Hooker  was  charged  with  Popery,  because 
he  did  not  go  far  enough  in  the  condemnation  of  the 
Romish  Church,  for  her  doctrine  of  an  inherent 
righteousness  for  justification,  though  he  charged 
her  with,  therein,  overthrowing  the  foundations  of 
faith.  And  because  he  was  innocent  of  the  charge, 
it  is  desired  that  we  should  adjudge  those  also  to  be 
innocent  who  not  only  do  not  grant  that  Rome  does 
what  Hooker  charged,  but  entirely  imite  with  and 
defend  her  in  that  very  thing,  as  sustaining  the  truth 
of  God.  We  cannot  be  so  conciliatory  as  this.  If 
men  have  cried  Popery  when  there  was  no  danger, 
it  does  not  follow  that  w^ienever  the  cry  shall  be 
raised  again,  we  should  remain  at  ease.  Many 
groundless  alarms  of  fire  are  heard  in  our  cities.  In- 
cendiaries would  be  glad  to  persuade  us  hence,  that 
all  future  alarms  are  so  likely  to  be  groundless  that 
we  need  not  heed  them.  So  would  Satan  rejoice  in 
his  work,  and  have  free  course  to  inflame  the  city  of 
God  with  his  fiery  darts,  could  he  only  persuade  us 
that  because  such  men  as  Hooker  and  Whitgift,  &c., 
were  falsely  accused  of  Popery,  therefore  we  need 
be  under  no  apprehension  of  Popery  from  the  men 
of  Oxford.    We  are  not  to  be  put  asleep  by  such 


52S 


opiates,  nor  blinded  by  such  dust.  Popery  is  on 
the  alert.  Satan  is  about  his  work.  The  Church  of 
England  is  his  strong  antagonist.  Her  citadel  he 
longs  to  possess.  Secret  mines  are  to  be  expected, 
under  the  very  feet  of  her  garrison.  Wisdom  is  to 
fear  alway. 

Let  it  not  be  supposed  that  the  system  of  Oxford 
divinity,  and  of  its  resulting  practice,  has  now- 
reached  its  full  maturity  either  in  the  minds  and 
plans  of  its  holders,  or  in  the  fulness  of  its  manifest 
ramifications.  It  must  of  necessity  go  onward,  or 
deny  itself  and  retire  from  the  ground  it  stands  on. 
In  its  originating  principle  of  Justification,  by  a 
righteousness  wdthin,  its  tendency  is  either  to  a  cold 
and  naked  Socinianism,  in  which  the  cross  of  Christ 
is  moved  out  of  sight  for  a  self-righteousness  of  un- 
mystified  morality,  or  else  to  a  complex  Romanism 
in  which  that  cross  is  also  moved  out  of  sight,  to 
make  room  for  a  self-righteousness  of  mystic  pseudo- 
spirituality  combined  w^ith  a  cumbrous  system  of 
external  observances  and  w^orks.  To  which  of  these, 
by  no  means,  opposite  results,  the  radical  principle  will 
tend,  depends  altogether  upon  circumstances  within 
and  around  the  mind  of  its  holder.  In  the  atmos- 
phere of  Germany,  it  is  a  philosophic  theologism.  In 
the  circumstances  of  the  early  Quakers,  it  was  to  a 
spiritualized,  but  unitarian  mysticism,  resulting,  in 
the  present  age,  in  a  lamentable  harvest  of  naked 
Deism.  In  parts  of  Oxford,  it  is  to  entire  Popery. 
Circumstances  determine  to  which  gulph  the  same 
fountain  shall  send  its  streams.  The  stream  of  Ox- 
fordism  has  been  already  well  determined.  Its  bold 
tide  is  straight  onward  and  downward,  regardless  of 


529 


obstacles,  proud  of  overleaping  them,  rejoicing  in  its 
bounds,  constantly  becoming  capable  of  greater  and 
bolder.  Now  it  must  go  on  and  reach  the  last  level 
— the  dead -sea  of  fixed,  infalhble  Popery,  or  else  be 
lost  in  some  intervening  sands  whose  friendly  graves 
shall  save  it  from  more  extreme  disgrace.  More  and 
more  developments  are  continually  to  be  expected. 
There  is  unquestionable  evidence  that  when  its  pre- 
sent chief  representatives  began  to  be  known  in  such 
connection,  they  had  little  idea  of  eventually  arriving 
at  their  own  present  attainments  in  what  they  dignify 
as  Catholic  restorations.  The  germ  has  been  growing 
and  expanding  in  their  own  minds,  and  they  have  been 
seeing  further  and  farther  into  ''the  depth  and  rich- 
ness" of  the  Roman  and  Parisian  Breviaries,  and  the 
excellence  of  "the  bitterness  of  the  ancient  medi- 
cine," and  getting  more  and  more  knowledge  of  what 
ouCTht  to  be  restored  in  the  ''deo^raded"  Church  of 
England,  in  order  to  raise  her  to  the  condition  of  the 
King's  daughter,  in  proportion  as  they  have  exer- 
cised their  power,  by  use,  to  discern  the  Via  Media 
in  all  its  length  and  breadth,  as  it  runs  here  and  there 
amid  the  thorns  of  the  Schoolmen  and  the  mazes  of 
tradition.  Success  is  a  wonderful  help  to  sight,  in 
such  enterprises.  Whoever  will  look  back  to  the 
state  of  Dr.  Pusey's  mind  in  182S,  when  he  wrote 
his  book  on  the  Rationalism  of  Germany,  in  reference 
to  the  discourses  of  H.  J.  Rose,  on  German  Protest- 
antism, will  see  that  since  then  there  has  been  a 
wonderful  progress  in  his  opinions  from,  what  he 
would  now  call.  Ultra  Protestantism,  towards  its  op- 
posite. There  we  read  of  the  ''endless  straw-split- 
tings of  the  Schoolmen  ''  who  are  now  so  earnestly 

67 


530 

praised  and  studied.  Scholastic  definitions  (he  says) 
buried  the  hardly  won  evangelical  truth  of  the  Ger- 
man Reformers."^  The  system  which  succeeded  to 
that  of  Luther  "could  not  endure,  (he  says)  a  re-ac- 
tion was  unavoidable  unless  some  one  or  some  suc- 
cessor of  men  gifted  with  Luther' s  pious  and  discrimi- 
nating mind  appeared^^  Luther's  lesser  Catechism 
is  ''a  full  and  clear  exposition  of  the  sum  of  Christian 
faith,  in  reference  to  Christian  life,  with  well  selected 
Scripture  proofs."^ 

*'  Had  the  German  Reformation  been  perfected  in  the  spirit  in 
which  its  great  instrument  might  have  completed  it,  if  permitted  tran- 
quilly to  finish  his  work,  or  supported  by  others  acting  on  his 
own  principles  and  surveying  the  whole  system  of  Revelation,  with 
the  comprehensive  and  discriminating  view  of  his  master-mind,  the 
history  of  the  German  Church  had  probably  been  altogether  differ- 
ent. The  fruitless  attempts  to  satisfy  an  uneasy  and  active  con- 
science by  the  meritorious  performances  of  a  Romish  convent  had 
opened  his  eyes  to  the  right  understanding  of  Scripture,  in  whose 
doctrines  alone  it  could  find  rest ;  and  the  clear  and  discerning  faith 
which  this  correspondence  of  Scripture  with  his  own  experience 
strengthened  in  him,  gave  him  that  intuitive  insight  into  the  nature 
of  Christianity  which  enabled  him  for  the  most  part  unfailingly  to 
discriminate  between  essentials  and  non-essentials,  and  raised  him 
not  only  above  the  assumed  authority  of  the  Church,  and  above  the 
might  of  tradition,  but  above  the  influence  of  hereditary  scholastic 
opinions,  the  power  of  prejudices,  and  the  dominion  of  the  letter. 
Unfortunately,  however,  the  further  expansion  of  his  views  necessa- 
rily yielded  to  the  then  yet  more  important  practical  employments, 
to  which  this  great  apostle  of  evangelical  truth  dedicated  the  most 
of  his  exertions  ; — the  instruction  of  the  young,  the  care  of  all  the 
churches,  the  necessary  struggles  with  the  Romish  Church,  or  with 
those  seceders  from  it,  who  maintained  tenets  inconsistent  with  the 
first  principles  of  the  Reformation,  as  in  the  opposed  tenets  of  the 
Anabaptists  and  of  Zuingli. 


•P.  16.       2  P.  50.      3  p.  75. 


631 


His  successors  in  developing  to  the  utmost  subordinate  but  con- 
tested points  of  his  system,  neglected  the  great  views  which  lay  be- 
yond the  sphere  of  their  polemics.  Few,  comparatively,  in  the  large 
mass  of  the  active  agents  in  the  Reformation,  were  led  to  the  rejec- 
tion of  the  errors  of  the  Church  of  Rome  through  the  same  school 
of  experience,  by  which  the  master-mover  had  been  conducted. 
Many  had  been  merely  theoretically  convinced  of  its  errors,  others 
sought  a  freedom  from  intellectual  tyranny,  others  political  advan- 
tages, some  finally  followed,  but  half-consciously,  the  mighty  impulse. 
The  number  of  the  noble  band,  who  were  actuated  by  the  same  spirit 
which  impelled  Luther  was  diminished,  and  their  agency  disturbed 
by  the  troubles  of  the  times ;  by  which  e.  g.  Melancthon  and  Chy- 
trffius  became  for  some  time  wanderers  in  Germany;  Burer  acquired 
amonor  ourselves  a  new  scene  of  evanorelical  exertion."^ 

What  perfect  opposition  to  this  is  now  displayed 
in  all  Dr.  Pusey's  sentiments  concerning  Luther, 
his  associates,  the  tendencies  of  his  work  and  princi- 
ples and  all  the  Reformation !  Now,  the  results  in 
Germany  are  the  direct  consequence  of  Luther's 
system.  In  IS2S,  they  were  considered  as  the  di- 
rect result  of  a  departure  from  his  system.  Now  he 
is  the  Prince  of  Ultra  Protestants ;  then  he  was  the 
master-mind  of  a  noble  band  who  "set  aside  the  im- 
practical formula  of  the  school,  for  other  language, 
but  especially  that  which  came  from  the  pure  and 
rich  fountain  of  Lutlier.''-  But  let  us  proceed  a  lit- 
tle further. 

Mr.  Rose  had  ascribed  the  decline  of  theology  in 
Germany,  in  a  great  degree,  to  the  neglect  of  a 
controling  superintendance,  and  of  adherence  to  the 
letter  of  the  symbolical  books.*'  Dr.  Pusey.  in  1S28, 
''could  not  but  think  that  this  view  involved  the 
abandonment  of  tlie  fundamental  principles  of  Protes- 


^v.%.  «  p.  102. 


532 


tantism  and  derogated  from  the  independence  and  the 
inherent  porver  of  the  rvord  of  God.''' 

"  That  scripture  needs  no  such  adscititious  means  to  preserve  gen- 
erally its  healthful  truths  from  such  corruption  as  would  neutralize 
their  efficacy,  appeared  to  result  from  the  history  of  the  early  Church, 
in  which  for  above  two  centuries  no  symbols  were  at  all  received, 
and  even  when  heretical  speculation  did  render  such  safe-guards  ne- 
cessary in  individual  cases,  they  were  extended  no  further  than  the 
emergency  of  such  cases  required  ;  the  rest  of  the  body  of  Christian 
doctrine  was  committed  to  the  keeping  of  unauthoritative  tradi- 
tion, expounding  the  word  of  the  Scripture :  that  a  recurrence  to 
Scripture  is  sufficient  to  regenerate  the  system  when  corrupted^  in- 
dependent of,  or  in  opposition  to,  existing  symbols,  resulted  from 
the  various  portions  of  the  history  of  the  Reformation.  It  must  be 
repeated  that  it  is  not  intended  by  the  maintainance  of  these  views  to 
derogate  from  the  value  of  articles,  generally,  much  less  of  such,  as 
are  drawn  up  with  so  much  judgment  and  moderation  as  our  own; 
their  value  is  certainly  very  great  both  to  individuals,  as  presenting 
a  test  by  which  to  examine  the  character  of  their  own  faith,  and  to 
the  Church,  as  enabling  it  to  exclude  those,  who  depart  from  the 
principles  upon  which  itself  was  founded.  The  view,  in  which,  the 
author  felt  it  impossible  to  participate,  was  not  a  supposed  probabili- 
ty that  the  Church  might  suffer  from  individual  deviations,  but  the 
supposition  that  the  whole  or  the  greater  part  of  the  body  must  ne- 
cessarily decline,  unless  it  were  voluntarily  to  bind  its  hands  by  the 
resolution  never  to  deviate  from  the  letter  of  the  faith  of  its  earlier 
state.''^ 

After  this  exhibition  of  the  rapid  progress  which 
the  views  of  the  Oxford  Divines,  have  already  made, 
having  the  boundless  field  of  Tradition  from  which 
to  gather  their  resources,  and  all  the  treasures  of  the 
School-men,  no  longer  regarded  as  so  full  of  hair- 
splittings, (especially  in  distinguishing  between  a 
righteousness  in  us  and  within  us)  at  their  command, 
it  is  natural  to  suppose  that  their  system,  will  con- 


»  Pref,  p.  I. 


533 


tinue  to  grow  with  greatly  increased  vigour.  The 
seminal  principle  of  Invocation  of  Saints;  the  partially 
developed  duty  of  praying  for  the  dead ;  the  half-way 
step  to  image-worship,  in  the  present  reverence  to 
the  image  of  the  cross ;  the  approach  to  a  disuse  of 
preaching,  and  to  a  service  in  an  unknown  tongue, 
found  in  the  urgent  inculcation  of  Reserve  in  com- 
municating religious  knowledge;"  the  ahiiost-doc- 
trine  of  Transubstantiation,  in  the  doctrine  of  the 
real,  substantial  Presence  of  the  Body  of  Christ  in 
the  Eucharist;  the  preparation  for  further  restora- 
tions, in  the  adoption  of  the  whole  body  of  unwritten 
Tradition,  as  proceeding  from  the  same  fount  of  In- 
spiration as  the  Scriptures,  and  as  the  authoritative 
Interpreter  of  Holy  Writ ;  the  additional  preparation, 
in  the  doctrine  of  Implicit  Faith,  viz.  taking  articles 
of  faith  implicitly  from  the  Church,  because  the 
Church  declares  them ;  afford  too  much  ground  for 
the  fear  that  Oxford  Divinity  will  soon  make  good 
this  promise  of  its  further  growth. 

The  facility  of  growth  in  the  one  doctrine  of  Pur- 
gatory, may  be  judged  of,  from  what  Dr.  Pusey  tells 
us  of  its  history  among  early  Christians  situated,  in 
regard  to  it.  precisely  as  he  is.  In  his  account  of  the 
rise  of  that  Doctrine  in  Tract  Xo.  79.  we  have  the 
following  statement. 

"  The  very  circumstance  that  no  second  instrument  of  a  plenary 
and  entire  cleansing  from  sin  was  given  after  baptism,  such  as  bap- 
tism, led  Christians  to  expect  that  that  unknown  means,  when  ac- 
corded, would  be  of  a  more  painful  nature  than  that  which  they 
had  received  so  freely  and  instantaneously  in  infancy,  and  confirmed, 
not  only  the  text  already  cited,  '  He  shall  baptize  you  with  the  Holy 
Ghost  and  with  fire,'  but  also  St.  Paul's  announcement  of  the  'judg- 
ment and  fiery  indignation'  which  awaits  those  who  sin  after  having 


534 


been  once  *  enlightened,'  and  by  Chrisfs  warning  to  the  impotent 
man  to  sin  no  more  lest  a  worse  thing  come  upon  him. 

"  Lastly,  the  universal  and  apparently  apostolical  custom  of  praying 
for  the  dead  in  Christ,  called  for  some  explanation,  the  reason  for  it 
not  having  come  down  to  posterity  with  it.  Various  reasons  may  be 
supposed  quite  clear  of  this  distressing  doctrine,  but  it  supplied  an 
adequate  and  a  most  constraining  motive  for  its  observance  to  those 
who  were  not  content  to  practice  it  in  ignorance. 

Should  any  one  for  a  moment  be  startled  by  any  thing  that  is 
here  said,  as  if  investing  the  doctrine  with  some  approach  to  plausi- 
bility, I  would  have  him  give  God  thanks  for  the  safeguard  of 
Catholic  Tradition,  which  keeps  us  from  immoderate  speculation 
upon  Scripture,  or  a  vain  indulgence  of  the  imagination,  by  authorita- 
tively declaring  the  contents  and  the  limits  of  the  Creed  necessary  to 
salvation,  and  profitable  to  ourselves."^ 

Let  any  one,  after  reading  the  above,  just  ask  him- 
self :  if  this  be  true,  why  not  expect  the  same  results 
from  the  same  circumstances,  now  as  well  as  then  ? 
The  way  is  as  well  prepared,  the  need  is  as  much 
felt,  the  dead  are  alike  prayed  for,  passages  of  Scrip- 
ture are  just  as  favorably  interpreted.  Where  is  the 
barrier  ?  In  Tradition,  answers  Dr.  Pusey .  Scripture, 
he  thinks,  instead  of  furnishing  any  protection,  must 
be  interpreted,  on  the  other  side,  unless  defended  from 
such  conclusions  by  its  Interpreter,  Tradition.  All 
the  whole  Church,  learned  and  unlearned,  after  get- 
ting to  precisely  the  same  sense  of  the  need  of  Pur- 
gatory as  the  ancient  Christians  had,  to  comfort 
them  under  a  sense  of  sin  after  Baptism;  to  make  the 
Scriptures  consistent,  and  to  furnish  a  good  reason 
why  they  should  all  be  praying  for  the  dead ;  all  are 
to  be  held  fast,  where  the  ancient  Church  drifted  up- 
on a  lee-shore,  by  the  single  anchor  of  Tradition,  let 


'  Tract  No.  79,  pp.  536  and  7. 


535 


down  into  the  shifting  sands  of  men's  whims,  and 
caprices,  and  prejudices,  and  corruptions,  assaulted 
on  all  sides  by  the  Prince  of  the  Power  of  the  Air." 
But  had  not  the  ancient  Church  that  anchor  better 
than  we  have  it  ?  Was  not  Tradition,  in  their  day, 
more  accessible,  because  they  were  so  much  nearer 
its  head-springs ;  more  simple  and  uncomplicated, 
and  easily  settled  and  readily  used  1  How  then  if 
they  were  not  held  fast  from  driving  upon  the  dark 
mountains  of  Purgatory,  are  we  ever  to  be  held  to  our 
moorings?  Oh,  no!  Prayers  for  the  dead,  and  the 
denial  of  a  plenary  absolution  for  sin  after  baptism, 
and  the  granting  of  a  purification  in  another  world, 
all  of  which  are  attained  already  in  the  race  of  this 
divinity,  pressing  on  to  the  prize  of  its  high  calling, 
must  soon  cross  the  invisible  line  that  separates  from 
Popish  Purgatory,  and  carrying  Tradition  along,  bid 
it  raise  its  voice,  as  it  will  easily  find  the  excuse  for 
doing,  as  the  bold  preacher  of  the  doctrine,  of  which 
it  was  before  the  appointed  antagonist. 

A  few  lines  more  and  we  shall  conclude  the  Chap- 
ter and  the  book.  We  hear  much  of  the  eminent 
holiness  of  the  divines  who  are  zealously  urging 
on  this  system  and  of  the  holy  tendency  of  much  of 
their  writings;  and  much  hope  is  entertained  by 
some  that  in  spite  of  some  serious  errors  of  doctrine, 
the  result  of  their  labours  will  be  a  great  increase  of 
holy  living  in  the  Church. 

Of  the  personal  attainments  of  the  divines  alluded 
to,  in  the  beauty  of  holiness,  we  have  nothing  to  say. 
We  trust  it  is  all  that  it  is  said  to  be.  God  forbid 
that  we  should  tread  on  such  ground,  with  any  but 
the  respectful  and  affectionate  consideration  of  the 


536 


highest  Christian  charity  and  kindness.  Bnt,  of  the 
system,  we  mtist  speak  m  this  regard.  If  Roman- 
ism has  any  special  tendency  to  the  increase  of  hoh- 
ness ;  if  its  history  bears  testimony  to  the  efficacy  of 
its  shallow  principles,  its  cautious  observances,  its 
reserve  of  preaching,  its  opus  optratum  of  sacra- 
ments, its  penances,  its  unctions,  its  prayers  for  the 
dead,  &c.,  to  promote  holiness  of  heart  and  life ;  if, 
where  it  is  best  tried,  in  its  monasteries  of  old  Papal 
States,  men  are  most  spiritually  minded,  best  in- 
structed in  the  way  of  salvation,  most  pure  in  mo- 
rals, most  elevated  in  the  worship  of  God,  in  spirit 
and  in  truth;  in  a  word,  if  to  "overthrow  the  foun- 
dations of  faith to  substitute  our  own  righteous- 
ness for  the  righteousness  of  God ;  to  keep  out  of 
view  the  atonement  of  our  Lord,  so  that  sinners  can- 
not look  to  it  and  live;  to  preach  a  cross  within,  for 
us  to  glory  in,  instead  of  the  cross  of  our  crucified 
Redeemer;  in  a  word  if  the  wisdom  of  man,  in- 
stead of  "the  foolishness  of  God";  if  Sacraments, 
set  up  instead  of  the  direct  looking  unto  Jesus,  for 
"  wisdom,  righteousness,  sanctification  and  redemp- 
tion," be  the  better  way  of  promoting  holiness  in 
God's  Church  and  in  man's  heart,  then  will  Oxford 
Divinity  fulfil  its  promises.  But  we  must  take  heed. 
"  What  God  hath  joined,  let  no  man  put  asunder." 
Holiness  cannot  live  but  in  connection  with  the 
true  doctrine  of  justifying  faith.  It  draws  life 
from  Christ,  the  True  Vine,  through  no  other  branch 
than  that  of  a  justifying  faith.  The  righteousness 
of  Christ,  accounted  unto  the  sinner  for  justification, 
through  the  instrumental  agency  of  a  living  faith, 
this  is  the  foundation  of  all  that  ministry  out  of 


537 


which  grew  the  permanent  blessing  of  true  righte- 
ousness of  life.  Under  any  other  system,  there  may 
be  individual  examples  in  spite  of  its  tendencies,  in 
virtue  of  a  better  education,  and  because  of  seeds  of 
truth  which  the  Scriptures  have  planted,  "  out  of  sea- 
son,^' when  the  keeper  of  the  system  slept.  So  do 
we  see  souls  converted  and  sanctified  under  modes 
of  ministry  which  all  of  us  would  acknowledge  to 
be  eminently  wrong,  and  in  their  exhibitions  of  doc- 
trine, exceedingly  defective.  We  speak  now  of  the 
permanent  and  general  results — what  is  called  in 
homely  phrase,  the  long-run.  And  in  this  view  of 
the  tendencies  of  Oxford  Divinity,  we  cannot  ques- 
tion, that  its  certain  results,  if  time  and  room  be  al- 
lowed it,  will  be  the  driving  of  true  godliness  from 
God's  house  and  the  surrounding  of  its  altars  and 
the  crowding  of  its  courts  with  the  wood,  hay  and 
stubble"  of  a  dead  formality,  which  the  Lord,  when 
he  Cometh,  will  destroy  with  the  breath  of  his  mouth. 

That  the  doctrine  of  Justification  as  maintained  in 
these  pages  in  contrast  with  that  of  Oxford  divinity 
and  Romanism,  when  unreservedly  preached,  is  liable 
to  be  abused  by  those  who  are  ever  ready  to  draw 
encouragements  to  continuance  in  impenitence,' from 
the  mercies  of  God,  cannot  be  questioned.  ^*It  is 
impossible  to  preach  the  gospel,  but  that  a  carnal  and 
sinful  heart  may  wrest  it  so  as  to  suck  poison,  instead 
of  honey  from  it ;  such  being  apt  to  take  all  occasions 
of  turning  the  grace  of  God  into  wantonness.  And 
therefore  the  Apostle  himself,  when  he  treated  upon 
this  subject,  even  our  justification  by  faith  in  Christ, 
was  still  forced  to  prevent  this  object  by  a  peremp- 
tory denial  of  the  consequence."    Precisely  the  evils 

68 


538 


which  by  many  are  supposed  to  result  from  the  un- 
reserved exhibition  of  this  doctrine,  were  laid  to  the 
charge  of  the  same,  as  preached  by  St.  Paul.  He 
denied  the  charge,  but  not  the  doctrine.  He  denied 
that  the  accuser  had  rightly  interpreted  its  proper  in- 
ferences and  effects;  but  persisted,  through  evil  re- 
port and  good,  in  preaching  still  the  same  doctrine. 
The  abuses  were  of  man's  corruption ;  the  doctrine 
was  of  God's  wisdom,  and  grace,  and  holiness.  He 
might  as  well  have  ceased  to  declare  the  plenteous 
goodness — the  wonderful  long  suffering — the  infinite 
mercy  of  God  :  for  out  of  all  is  extracted,  by  the 
subtle  devices  of  human  depravity,  the  very  poison 
that  makes  men  sleep  so  securely  in  their  sins.  But 
while  we  must  faithfully  imitate  the  example  of  St. 
Paul,  in  suffering  no  consideration  to  prevent  us  from 
assigning  to  this  doctrine  a  most  prominent  place  in 
our  ministry,  as  emphatically  '*  the  word  of  recon- 
ciliation" which,  as  Ambassadors  of  Christ,  we  are  to 
proclaim  to  all  people ;  we  are  bound,  like  St.  Paul, 
to  see  to  it,  most  anxiously,  not  only  that  it  be  so  de- 
livered as  to  be  as  much  as  possible  protected  from 
misunderstandings  and  perversions,  but  so  also  that 
it  may  be  productive,  through  the  Spirit  of  Christ, 
of  true  holiness  of  heart  and  life  in  those  who  profess 
to  embrace  it.  We  must  take  care  that  in  our  own 
hearts,  in  all  our  words,  we  do  manifestly  insist,  as 
zealously,  and  with  as  much  sense  of  necessity,  upon 
personal  holiness,  to  make  us  "^e^^,"  as  upon  a  jus- 
tifying righteousness,  not  personal,  to  give  us  a  title, 
''to  be  partakers  with  the  saints  in  light."  Justifi- 
cation, by  faith  without  works,  is  no  more  to  be 
preached  than  sanctification,  which  embraces  faith 


539 


and  all  good  works.  The  righteousness  of  Christ, 
imputed,  is  one  part  of  salvation.  It  delivers  us  from 
the  condemnation  of  sin.  The  righteousness  of  Christ, 
dwelling  in  us,  by  His  Spirit,  is  another,  and  equally- 
important  part  of  our  salvation.  It  delivers  us  from 
the  dominion  of  sin.  "  We  are  far  from  that  liber- 
tinism to  conclude,  that  because  Christ  hath  obeyed 
the  whole  law  for  us  therefore  we  are  exempted  from 
obedience.  He  hath  done  for  us  whatever  was  re- 
quired in  order  to  merit  and  satisfaction ;  yet  he 
hath  not  done  for  us  whatever  was  required  in  order 
to  obedience  and  a  holy  conversation  ;  he  hath  done  the 
work  of  a  Mediator  and  Redeemer ;  yet  he  never  did 
the  work  of  a  sinner,  that  stood  in  need  of  a  Redeem- 
er, so  as  to  excuse  him  from  it  And,  therefore, 
though  men  may  be  justified  by  a  surety,  yet  they 
cannot  be  sanctified  by  a  surety;  but  still  holiness, 
obedience,  and  good  works,  must  be  perso7ial  and  not 
imputative^  Christ  is  become  the  Author  of  eternal 
salvation  unto  all  them  that  obeij  him.  His  people 
must  be  "a  peculiar  people, — a  holy  nation, — puri- 
fied unto  himself — zealous  of  good  works."  St.  Paul 
preached  that  we  are  saved  "  by  grace  through  faith, 
not  of  rvorks,^'  but  not  without  immediately  adding 
that  we  are  created  in  Christ  Jesus  unto  good  works, 
which  God  hath  ordained  that  we  should  walk  in 
them."  "Herein,  (said  the  Lord,)  is  my  Father 
glorified  that  ye  bring  forth  m,uch  fruit,  so  shall  ye 
be  my  disciples." 

We  come  far  short  of  the  spirit  of  our  minis- 
try, if  our  hearts  be  notintently  fixed  upon  the  pro- 
motion of  personal  holiness  in  the  lives  of  our  peo- 
ple ;  we  fail  entirely  in  the  effect  of  our  ministry  if 


540 


our  doctrine  be  not  successful  in  securing  it.  But 
how  is  this  blessed  result  to  be  secured  ?  How  shall 
we  preach  the  way  of  a  sinner's  justification  by  faith, 
so  as  the  most  successfully  to  promote  in  him  "  the 
sanctification  of  the  Spirit  unto  obedience?" 

I  answer,  not  by  any  reserve,  on  the  subject  of  jus- 
tification, exhibiting  that  doctrine  only  partially  and 
fearfully,  in  reduced  terms,  and  in  a  background  po- 
sition, as  if  afraid  of  the  fulness  in  which  the  Scrip- 
tures declare  it  to  all  who  read  or  hear  them.  Re- 
serve here,  is  reserve  in  preaching  "  Christ,  and  him 
crucified."  Our  grand  message,  every  where,  is: — 
"Be  it  known  unto  you,  men  and  brethren,  that 
through  this  man  is  preached  unto  you  the  forgive- 
ness of  sin :  and  by  him  all  that  believe  are  justified 
from  all  things  from  which  they  could  not  be  justified 
by  the  law  of  Moses."  St.  Paul  waited  not  till  men 
were  well  initiated  into  christian  mysteries,  before 
he  unveiled  the  grand  subject  of  atonement  and  jus- 
tification throus^h  the  blood  of  Christ.  No — the  oros- 
pel  plan  of  promoting  sanctification  is  just  the  oppo- 
site of  holding  in  obscurity  any  feature  of  the  doctrine 
of  justification.  It  is  simply  to  preach  that  doctrine 
most  fully,  in  all  its  principles  and  connexions  ;  in  all 
its  grace,  and  all  its  works ;  in  its  utmost  plainness 
and  simplicity ;  so  that  whatever  leads  to  it,  v/hatever 
is  contained  in  it,  and  whatever  legitimately  results 
from  it,  whether  it  be  sin  and  condemnation,  as  need- 
ing an  imputed  righteousness ;  the  love  of  God,  as 
providing  that  righteousness  in  his  only  begotten  Son; 
the  blessed  Redeemer,  as  off'ering  up  himself  a  sacri- 
fice to  obtain  it ;  faith,  as  embracing  it  freely  ;  hope, 
as  resting  upon  it  joyfully  ;  the  promises,  as  assuring 


541 


the  believer  perfectly  ;  the  sacraments,  as  signing  and 
sealing  them  effectually  to  those  who  duly  receive 
them ;  a  new  heart,  as  the  essential  companion  of  a 
living  faith ;  unreserved  obedience,  as  the  necessary 
expression  of  a  new  heart ;  obedience  springing  from 
the  love  of  God,  in  Christ ;  keeping  its  eye  of  faith, 
for  motive,  strength  and  acceptance,  upon  the  cross, 
and  embracing  in  its  walk,  all  departments  of  duty ; 
all  this,  as  coming  legitimately  within  the  embrace 
of  the  full  preaching  of  justification  by  faith,  is  the 
way  to  promote,  through  the  effectual  working  of  the 
Spirit  of  God  upon  the  conscience  and  heart  of  the 
sinner,  his  sanctification  through  the  truth. 

We  cannot  preach  the  righteousness  of  Christ,  for 
justification,  with  any  propriety,  unless,  as  the  first 
thing,  to  show  the  sinner's  need  thereof,  we  preach 
the  righteousness  of  the  law  in  the  condemnation  of 
every  soul  that  sinneth.  No  more  can  we  preach 
the  righteousness  of  Christ,  for  justification,  with  any 
justice,  unless,  beside  its  need  and  nature,  we  preach 
its  fruits,  and  trace  them  out  in  all  their  branches, 
and  show  how  they  all  spring  out  only  and  necessa- 
rily of  a  true  and  lively  faith.  Thus  does  the  doc- 
trine of  faith  embrace,  in  one  hand,  the  righteous- 
ness of  the  law  in  the  condemnation  of  the  sinner, 
bringing  him  to  Christ  that  he  may  be  justified  by 
faith,  and  in  the  other,  that  same  righteousness,  in 
the  sanctification  of  the  believer,  witnessing  that  he 
is  in  Christ,  and  is  justified  by  faith. 

Does  St.  Paul  describe  the  blessedness  of  those 
"  who  are  in  Christ  Jesus" — witnessing  that  ''to  them 
there  is  no  condemnation  ?"  He  adds  iaimediately — 
" who  walk  not  after  the  flesh,  hut  after  the  Spirit'' 


542 


thus  insisting  on  the  essential  connexion  between  a 
justifying  faith  and  a  spiritual  life.  Let  this  text  be 
carried  out  by  the  preacher.  Let  him  show  how 
Christ,  if  ever  "made  unto  us,  of  God,  by  imputation, 
righteousness,'"  must  also  be  made  unto  us,  by  the  in- 
dwelling of  His  Spirit,  sanctiji cation  ;  both  equally, 
though  differently,  necessary  for  final  redemption ; — 
both  equally,  though  differently,  derived  from  Christ, 
through  his  obedience  unto  death ;  both  obtained  by 
the  same  faith,  at  the  same  time ;  distinct  in  office, 
but,  like  the  water  and  the  blood  from  the  side  of  the 
Lamb  of  God,  inseparable ;  so  that  by  the  blessed 
union  of  justification  and  holiness,  peace  and  purity, 
in  all  the  way  of  the  beUever,  he  may  be  complete  in 
Christ.  Let  the  preacher  dwell  minutely  upon  the 
developments,  as  well  as  the  principle,  of  personal 
sanctification.  The  planting  of  the  root  of  faith  does 
not  supercede  the  necessity  of  training  and  pruning 
the  branches  of  obedience.  It  follows  not  in  this 
husbandry,  any  more  than  in  any  other,  that  if  the 
root  be  good,  the  branches  will  all  take,  of  themselves, 
precisely  the  right  direction.  We  must  copy  the 
ministry  of  the  Apostles  in  the  minute  tracing  out  of 
the  fruits  of  faith  in  all  the  ways  of  holy  living — in 
the  affections,  desires,  tempers,  habits,  conversation, 
and  all  relative  duties.  To  expect  the  issues  of  life 
without  seeing  to  the  indwelling  of  the  principle  of 
life,  is  an  error  only  next  worse  to  that  of  being  con- 
tent with  the  latter,  without  attending  carefully  to  all 
its  processes  in  the  former.  Parental  care  is  not  sat- 
isfied when  the  child  is  evidently  governed  by  a  filial 
love.  It  brings  line  upon  line,  to  guide,  instruct,  ad- 
monish, remind,  and  exhort  that  love.    So  is  the 


543 


nurture  and  admonition*'  by  which  the  minister  must 
seek  to  lead  out  the  great  principle  of  ''faith  that 
worketh  by  love" — bringing  the  various  and  minute 
applications  of  that  love,  seasonably  to  the  remem- 
brance" of  the  believer,  holding  up  continually  to  an 
eye,  prone  to  dullness,  and  a  heart,  prone  to  negli- 
gence, the  law  ;  the  'precept  of  holiness,  *'as  it  is  in 
Jesus,"  commended  by  his  authority,  illustrated  in 
his  example,  expounded  in  his  v^ord,  enforced  by  his 
love,  and  fulfilled  in  us  by  the  indwelling  of  His 
Spirit.  If  we  have  it  not  to  urge,  as  a  motive  to  obe- 
dience, that  it  will  obtain  or  promote  the  sinner's 
justification,  what  matters  it  ?  We  have  it  to  urge, 
that  without  obedience,  there  can  be  neither  the  liv- 
ing faith  that  justifies,  nor  the  true  holiness  that 
makes  us  meet  for  the  presence  of  God ;  we  have  the 
duty  also,  as  well  as  the  necessity  of  unreserved  obe- 
dience, to  urge  upon  the  heart  and  conscience,  with 
just  as  much  authority  as  if  works,  instead  of  faith, 
were  the  only  way  of  justification ;  we  have  more ; 
we  have  also  the  love  of  God  in  Christ,  preparing  for 
our  ruined  souls,  his  only  begotten  Son  to  be  the 
sacrifice  for  our  sins,  and  the  amazing  love  of  Christ, 
brino^inor  him  to  be  obedient  unto  the  death  of  the 
cross  for  us  miserable  sinners.  And  thence,  from  his 
agony  and  bloody  SAveat,  his  cross  and  passion, 
springs  the  constraining  motive  to  a  diligent,  devoted, 
cheerful,  filial,  zealous  obedience,  in  all  things. — 
The  love  of  Christ  constrainethus,"  said  Christians 
of  old,  "because  we  thus  judge  that  if  one  died  for 
all,  then  were  all  dead,  and  that  he  died  for  all,  that 
they  which  live  should  live  not  unto  themselves,  but 
unto  Him  that  died  for  them  and  rose  again."  Here 


544 


is  love  fulfilling  the  law,  banishing  the  living  unto 
ourselves;  substituting  devotedness  to  Christ;  dis- 
cerning its  conclusive  reason,  obtaining  its  all-pow- 
erful motive  by  the  eye  of  faith  which  beholds  the 
love  of  Christ  dying  for  the  ungodly,  and  thence  be- 
gins immediately  to  rcorlc  hij  love,  and  keep  his  com- 
mandments. 

Such  is  the  inseparable  connection  between  the 
faith  which  looks  unto  Jesus  and  justifies  the  soul, 
through  a  righteousness  imputed,  and  the  love  that 
equally  looks  unto  Jesus  and  bears  witness  to  the 
living  power  of  that  faith,  and  glorifies  God,  by  a 
righteousness,  personal  and  inherent,  doing  whatso- 
ever he  hath  commanded.^ 

Let  the  writer  be  allowed  to  conclude  by  direct- 
ing the  reader's  attention  to  the  note,  which  closes 
this  work,  and  contains  the  earnest  exhortation  of  his 
honoured  friend,  and  that  faithful  servant  of  God, 
the  present  Bishop  Wilson,  in  reference  to  all  the 
evils  against  which  this  book  has  been  written.- 


I  Bishop  McIIvaine's  Charge. 

2"  The  best  preventive  or  remedy  for  all  these  evils  is  the  old  doctrine  of  our 
Lord  and  Saviour  Christ  Jesus,  fully  and  scripturally  developed,  and  accompa- 
nied with  that  aSectionatP  pastoral  care,  and  that  mild  discipline  and  order, 
which  our  Protestaut  Episcopal  Church  has  provided. 

"  Teach,  then,  Brethren,  more  determinately  than  ever,  the  rxtined  and  fallen 
state  of  man  as  the  H'j'.y  Scriptures  reveal  it.  Unfold  the  unspeaka'  le  malig- 
nity of  sin  as  committed  against  God — the  deep,  and,  in  a  proper  sense,  total 
corruption  of  our  nature  in  all  its  powers — our  inability  of  oorselves  to  do  any 
thing  spiritually  good — our  moral  responsibility — our  guilt,  demerit,  ruin,  con- 
demnation, helplessness, — the  inconceivable  value  of  the  soul — the  nearness  of 
eternal  judgment — the  everlasting  duration  of  the  miseries  of  a  lost  state.  And 
point  out  the  remedy  for  all  this,  with  the  simplicity  of  the  inspired  Apostles,  in 
'  Repentance  towards  God,  and  faith  towards  our  Lord  Jesus  Christ.' 

"Teach  the  atonement  and  satisfaction  made  to  the  Divine  Justice  and  go- 
vernment btf  the  incarnation  and  obedience  unto  death  of  the  consubstantial 


545 


and  co-egual  Son  of  God.  Clearly  explain  that  justification  is  the  penitent 
sinner's  bein?  accounted  and  dealt  with  and  treated  'as  righteous  in  God's  sight 
by  faith  only  in  the  merits  of  our  Lord  and  Saviour  Jesus  Christ,  and  not  for 
his  own  works  and  de^ervings ;'  distinguish,  as  Hooker  did,  between  justifica" 
tion  and  sanctification,  and  boldly  preach  as  he  did,  that  God  'hath  made  him 
who  knew  no  sin,  to  be  sin  for  us,  that  we  might  be  made  the  righteousness  of 
God  in  him.'  Account  this  as  Luther,  the  Articulus  stands  ant  cadentis  ec- 
clesise.  Read  again  I  entreat  you,  the  incomparable  treatise  of  that  great  Re- 
former on  the  epistle  to  the  Galatians,  which  it  seems  will  be  once  more  as  re* 
quisite  and  appropriate  in  our  Protestant  Churches  now,  as  it  was  three  centu- 
ries since. 

"  Teach  also  the  personality,  divinity,  and  inward  ivork  of  God  the  Holy  Ghost, 
the  Lord  and  Giver  of  life,  in  all  Scriptural  fidelity,  as  infusing  the  righteous* 
ness  of  sanctification ;  as  renewing  man  after  the  divine  image  ;  creating  him  in 
Christ  Jesus  unto  good  works ;  raising  him  from  spiritual  death,  inscribing  the 
law  of  God  upon  his  heart ;  transforming  him  in  the  spirit  of  his  mind  ;  as  com- 
mencing first,  and  then  carrying  on  that  new  birth  and  life  of  holiness,  which  is 
the  preparation  and  qualification  for  serving  and  loving  God  both  on  earth  and 
in  heaven;  and  in  developing  this,  shun  the  fatal  error  of  limiting,  or  appearing 
to  limit,  the  determined  commencement  of  all  this  mighty  transformation  to  the 
change  of  state  and  attendant  grace — important  and  blessed  as  they  are — re- 
ceived by  the  infants  of  the  faithful  in  the  sacrament  of  baptism. 

"  Teach,  again,  the  indispensable  necessity  of  good  -works,  in  all  their  rami- 
ftcations,  as  ♦  the  fruit  of faith  and  following-  after  Just/f  cation  /  '  so  that  by 
them  a  lively  faith  may  be  as  evidently  known  as  a  tree  is  discerned  by  the 
fruit.'  Enter  into  all  the  details  of  duty  as  opened  by  our  Lord  in  his  sermon 
on  the  mount,  and  by  the  Apostles  in  the  practical  division  of  their  epistles. 
Enforce  the  perpetual  obligation  of  the  moral  law  upon  every  human  being-. 
Explain  the  interior  life  of  communion  with  our  heavenly  Father,  reconciled  to 
us  in  Jesus  Christ;  the  duties  of  private  and  family  prayer;  of  diligent  study 
of  Holy  Scripture  ;  of  separation  from  the  follies  of  the  world,  and  of '  growth 
in  grace  and  the  knowledge  of  our  Lord  and  Saviour  Jesus  Christ,'  to  the  last 
hour  of  life. 

"  Teach,  further,  in  connexion  with  all  this,  the  constitution  of  the  Christian 
Church,  the  dignity  and  importance  of  the  public  worship  of  Almighty  God, 
the  grace  and  efficacy  of  the  Sacraments,  the  divine  authority  and  perpetual 
obligation  of  the  Lord's  Day,  and  the  duty  of  reasonable  subjection  to  the  order 
and  discipline  of  the  Church  as  ordained  by  Christ,  its  Divine  Head.  Finally 
instruct  men  to  ascribe  the  whole  of  their  salvation  in  its  purchase,  its  offers,  its 
application,  to  the  merciful  will  and  choice  of  God  in  Christ  Jesus. 

"  Forgive  my  warmth,  my  honoured  brethren.  I  speak  as  a  father.  The 
Gospel  will  soon  slip  from  our  hands,  should  this  new  rule  of  faith  be  for  one 
single  moment  acquiesced  in. 


69 


546 


"If  abuses  of  the  weighty  principles  I  have  been  referring  to  should  arise,  as 
they  will,  oppose  them,  I  pray  you,  not  by  over-statements  of  the  truths  them- 
selves— much  less  by  calling  in  aid  from  a  new  rule  of  faith  ;  but  by  taking  into 
your  view  the  whole  compass  and  amplitude  of  each  truth  as  it  lies  in  Holy 
Scripture :  and  using  it  in  the  proportion,  and  for  the  ends,  and  in  the  spirit  in 
which  it  is  there  revealed,  with  a  wise  and  discriminating  adaptation  of  your  in- 
structions to  each  passing  emergency.  This  is  theology.  This  is  the  (iospel. 
This  is  to  follow  our  Reformers.  This  is  to  unite  the  inspired  wisdom  of  St. 
Paul  and  St.  James.  This  is  to  avoid  all  unfaithfulness  to  truth  on  the  one 
hand,  and  all  insidious  perversions  of  it  on  the  other. 

"Instruct  your  flocks,  for  example,  in  all  those  texts  of  inspired  Writ  which 
describe  or  imply  the  entire  fall  and  corruption  of  man;  and  also  those  which 
insist  on  his  accountableness,  and  his  duty  to  use  those  means  to  which  God 
attaches  the  promises  of  grace ;  and  f)reach  on  both  these  series  of  passages  in 
order  to  produce,  and  in  a  manner  calculated  to  produce,  and  for  no  other  object 
but  to  produce,  contrition  of  heart  for  sin,  both  original  and  actual,  and  earnest 
prayers  for  the  aid  of  the  Holy  Ghost.  Let  these  texts  appear  in  your  dis- 
courses, as  they  do  in  Scripture,  not  as  abstract  dogmas,  but  as  humiliating  argu- 
ments for  utJLB  AT  ALL.  Give,  then,  to  the  witnesses  and  writers  of  each  age 
all  reasonable  weight  and  influence,  but  yield  not  to  them  any  part  of  that  para- 
mount authority  which  appertains  only  to  the  revealed  Word  of  God.  Use 
them  as  advisers,  bow  not  to  them  as  sovereigns.  Honour  them  as  attendants 
around  the  footstool,  but  allow  them  not  to  self-knowledge,  confession,  peni- 
tence, faith  and  heart-felt  returns  to  God.    No  abuse  can  then  arise. 

"  Preach  justification  by  faith  only,  but  that  not  by  a  dead,  notional  belief — a 
mere  presumption — the  faith  of  devils — but  by  a  living,  heart-felt,  holy  principle 
of  reliance  upon  Christ,  springing  from  an  awakened  and  contrite  spirit,  and 
necessary  to  the  consolation  of  the  penitent's  mind,  when  sinking  under  the 
consciousness  of  guilt  and  unworthiness.  Let  justification  be  employed  in  your 
discourses,  as  it  is  in  the  writings  of  St.  Paul,  as  the  remedy  against  despair, 
and  the  motive  of  love  to  God,  and  of  filial  and  unreserved  obedience.  Thus 
you  shut  out  all  perversions. 

"Preach  the  influences  of  the  Holy  Ghost — but  operating  in  a  manner  not 
to  supersede,  but  aid  our  endeavours;  not  to  exclude,  but  magnify  the  inspired 
Word  of  God  ;  not  by  sudden  illapses  or  sensible  movements,  but  in  a  way 
agreeable  to  our  moral  and  accountable  nature;  not  appearing  in  animal  fer- 
vours and  over-confident  claims,  but  in  the  meek  and  solid  fruits  of 'all  good- 
ness, righteousness  and  truth.'    This  is  wholesome  doctrine. 

"  Preach  the  merciful  will  and  election  of  God  in  Christ  Jesus;  but  not  to 
lead  men  to  rush  into  the  secrets  of  the  Almighty,  but  in  order  to  gather 
grounds  of  gratitude  in  the  results  of  the  Divine  dispet)sations  in  providence 
and  grate  ;  whilst,  in  our  doings,  that  will  of  God  is  to  be  followed,  which  we 
have  expressly  declared  unto  us  in  the  Word  of  God." — Bishop  Wilson^s 
Charge,  1838. 


0 


